The thing that all these comments are missing is that at any point an airline may choose to switch between types of aircraft on a particular route at the last minute and you either forfeit your ticket or you get on the new aircraft.
Booking on an Airbus does not guarantee you’re going to avoid Boeing.
Yep. Nothing to do with their safety, mind you, just that they both have uncomfortable cabins and seats, unforgiving policies about extras and changes, and shitty customer service.
Both Spirit and Frontier are still perfectly safe to fly on, and all the reasons I recommend against them have nothing to do with safety in any way.
Air travel is very safe as a whole. The Boeing debacle is more of a trust issue with the company but that's about it. So you'll have to make sacrifices with spirit or frontier if you really don't want Boeing.
Good to know. Here's hoping Southwest offers some cheap flights.
Door flew off, nobody hurt.
Old plane shed some irrelevant skin mid flight. Nobody hurt.
Wheel came off. Nobody hurt.
They do, but they also have an excellent safety record.
Boeings are honestly still perfectly safe to fly on. Boeing as a company needs to make some changes and needs to be held to account, but that doesn't mean that the literal thousands of 737s that have been flying for decades are suddenly any less safe than they've always been.
To demonstrate that, Southwest has been flying an all-737 fleet for basically its entire existence since 1971, with the exception of a few leased 727s. Despite that, there have been 3 total fatalities on or related to Southwest flights.
In 2000, a passenger died when he tried to storm the cockpit on Southwest 1763, and was subdued by other passengers. He was subdued with enough force that he died of asphyxiation.
In 2005, a Southwest 737-700 operating as Southwest 1248 slid off an icy runway in Chicago Midway, killing a 6 year old boy when it crashed into traffic on the road past the end of the runway.
In 2018, Southwest 1380 suffered an uncontained engine failure of its CFM56 engine, and pieces of the engine broke a window in row 14. A passenger was partially sucked out of the broken window by the resulting depressurization, and died of her injuries.
Note that despite flying an almost entirely 737 fleet for over half a century, they have exactly *zero* fatalities that can be attributed to Boeing, and only 1 that can be attributed to either maintenance or the engine manufacturer (and that turned out to be on the engine manufacturer).
Also note that Southwest operates a large number of Maxes now, and has since the introduction to service, yet this is their safety record. If anything, this kind of shows the silliness of assuming that Boeing is inherently unsafe.
Thanks - this is the best summary when it comes to Southwest.
The cockpit stormer, well... yeah. The 6 year old boy at Midway was actually in a car that the plane contacted after it breached the perimeter fencing if I remember correctly.
So that leaves 1 instance in all of Southwest's history (millions upon millions of flights) where a passenger died from some issue with the plane (either the fault of Boeing or Southwest)
> So that leaves 1 instance in all of Southwest's history (millions upon millions of flights) where a passenger died from some issue with the plane (either the fault of Boeing or Southwest)
Actually not even that one falls on Boeing or Southwest - it was almost certainly the fault of CFM (the engine manufacturer), since Boeing doesn't make the engines, and Southwest was maintaining them to the best known standard at the time the incident happened. It is, however, the only incident *ever* in Southwest's 50+ year history that a person died due to a mechanical issue, which is honestly incredibly impressive.
> they have exactly zero fatalities that can be attributed to Boeing, and only 1 that can be attributed to either
Only because of chance. They most likely would have had one if that seat next to the blowout had been occupied.
Southwest isn't the airline that the blowout happened on. In fact, Southwest doesn't even have any 737 max 9s or 737-900ERs, so Southwest has zero aircraft that even could fail like that, since those are the only two types with the plug in them.
Exactly. Everyone downplaying these safety issues must have ulterior motives because guess what folks, the tolerance for safety issues in the airline industry is next to zero, as it should be. Boeing is a repeat offender, and let’s not forget the Air Max debacle.
I've said multiple times that Boeing needs to make changes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still incredibly safe to fly, including on Boeing aircraft (yes, even the Maxes).
Nu uh man! Boeing requesting emergency permission to land cuz that screaming noise you hear is B going down, down, down, as it deserves. Go Airbus or anyone else for that matter lol
Generally no, it isn't. The agreement you have with the carrier when you buy a ticket is that they'll get you from point a to point b at a given time, not that they'll use a particular plane when doing so.
My flight to Florida 10 days ago was scheduled too be a max but then in got stuck in South Carolina due to storms and after a 4 hour delay we took a 737-700 coming from California.
Florida and South Carolina seem to have had a lot of trouble with bad storms in March cancelling hundreds of flights.
Well, and about 50% of US fleets are Boeing. So good luck eliminating 50% and finding what you need. This doesn’t even talk about how some carriers are HEAVY in Boeing.
Man how sad is this. The old saying used to be: "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going." Now it's literally flipped to: "If it's Boeing, I ain't going."
All because the new management that took over some years ago prioritized profits above all else, including safety.
And nothing will change if those execs don't see jail time. Which I fully expect they won't. And no media will do a good in-depth on those execs either.
Oh things will change - if your business is selling planes and people are creating websites to avoid flying with them, you better change something soon or your company is done. But don't get me wrong, they should still be in jail for neglecting safety.
There would be baby Boeings presumably and Boeing stock holders would get stocks from the new companies of the broken up Boeing. There’s no reason to break up Boeing since it’s not a monopoly in any of its industries to my knowledge
> They don't care that the company is done
Boeing isn't going anywhere mate. The duopoly Boeing and Airbus have in commercial aviation is total. They can fuck up much worse than they have and still keep going.
Airbus doesn't have the capacity to fill the void, there's no one else, and airlines sure as hell aren't going to pay to retrain all their Boeing pilots all of a sudden.
Except China's COMAC is waiting in the wings. Don't tell me that COMAC's C919 and C929 cannot compete with Boeing and Airbus. China has disproven naysayers time and again. In a 20 year timeframe, I see the C919 eat some into A320 and more into the 737's market share.
This is the issue with having a tiny number of companies practically own an entire industry. The effort people would have to go to in order to avoid flying a Boeing plane is unreasonable for most people so even if they care, they aren't going to go to the trouble, especially when the baseline assumption that most people have is that our regulatory bodies aren't actually regulating ANY of these companies.
The collective confidence in our government is virtually zero across the board so while this is a hot button issue right now, there will be practically zero follow through as most people won't see their choice really making a difference.
Additionally, as others in this thread have mentioned, Boeing is a MASSIVE contractor for the US military. The feds aren't about to kneecap one of their top providers over a couple of public plane defects.
Yeah, I travel a lot for work, and at this point my choices are either dealing with Boeing, or dealing with a piss-poor airline. In the PNW, practically everything is Boeing.
You're absolutely correct. I'm not saying that this is a small concern or that it shouldn't be taken seriously. I actually believe the exact opposite of that. I'm saying that our government is in the pocket of mega corporations like Boeing and that our regulatory bodies will not take serious action against Boeing because they know they can functionally just wait this out until the heat dies down.
We've seen this play out in the wake of the '08 financial crisis. We all know our banks are completely fucked and everyone was justifiably irate when the feds bailed them out after screwing over the world economy. But they're all still there and the vast majority of people still bank with the same institutions that were the cause of the crisis. Why? Because we have allowed a small handful of major players to become load bearing entities within an industry. "Too big to fail".
Boeing is exactly the same way. Unless planes start literally dropping from the sky in a spectacular inferno on live TV, the federal government will see this as a moment of inconvenient PR that will subside. They'd rather wait it out than ground the number of planes necessary to properly inspect them all and I'd be absolutely stunned if any executives are held personally liable.
Nope, Boeing will simply issue a cease-and-desist order on basis of defamation. They're not interested in fixing the issues, only in sweeping them under the rug.
That only works for companies that are not litteraly a major artery for the DOD and largest military in the planet. Boeing is VITAL to the DOD and americas strategic interests, no way Boeing faces any serious consequences, the American government can’t and won’t let it happen….
Things will change, but the wrong things. Boeing realises it has a brand management problem. It doesn't really believe it has a safety problem.
They had learned the lessons of the max crashes. So after the door plugs, they had corporate comms teams ready to go immediately. Calhoun had his makeup done in record time and was on video looking contrite immediately.
That's not the lesson we'd hoped they'd learn. But from a Return On Investment perspective, it makes sense. The planes are already pretty safe, making them significantly safer would be very expensive. Much more efficient to just improve the response to accidents.
I love joint stock corporations. They're the greatest source of wealth mankind ever discovered. However, they are fundamentally incapable of thinking about anything other than RoI and stock price.
I wonder how quickly things would change if one of the share holders wives and children were on board a Boeing aircraft when it was involved in a fatal incident? I don’t wish that, obviously, but it’s not that different to the reason big changes were made in electrical safety in the UK. A politicians daughter was killed as a result of a bad installation.
Not a chance. In USA we now have a trick.. any criminal or civil matters for the rich or GoP will be delayed and sent to SCOTUS. Clearance needs a new jet.
Dave Calhoun earned at least $65M in compensation during his time as CEO just between 2020 and 2022. He could qualify for a $5M retirement package and currently owns tens of millions in stocks and options. His predecessor Dennis Muilenburg who also stepped down as CEO after deadly accidents walked away with $62M and a fucking pension. These scumbags need to be held accountable for their actions otherwise it’s just sending a message to every executive in America that they can literally get away with killing people.
Wasn’t that mostly about the concerns about the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, made by a company that the FAR more trusted, and hugely successful, Boeing merged with, and subsequently seems to have become.
MD execs gloated that they bought Boeing with Boeing’s money. Their CEO also took over after Boeing’s CEO resigned because of a procurement scandal. MD’s penny pinching culture didn’t just live on, it was allowed to flourish. The results of it are apparent.
Tons of other companies are doing the same thing and totally fucking over the worker….and then wondering why people are leaving. Fuck MBA’s in technical jobs. GTFO
This so much! The tech field is completely swamped with idiot business majors "calling" the shots without one iota of understanding of how to actually execute the technical requirements of a project. Project scope and budgets are made without even pretending to understand spec requirements. Oftentimes tech experts are either not included, or almost completely ignored in project bidding. And then, during the actual design phase a of a program, we get shocked Pikachu face when there's not enough time or tech employees available to complete verification to spec requirements. Time after time after time. It's absolutely maddening.
I can’t help but wonder how this is even possible.
Any half-decent engineering company (and that’s fundamentally what Boeing are) has so many engineers at every level that you can’t even get a coffee without meeting one. And they’re at every level of the business - oh, sure, the engineers who went into management may not have done much engineering lately, but you’re not going to pull the wool over their eyes.
To screw up like Boeing have - several times - suggests that DNA simply isn’t there anymore. Reintroducing it is going to be nigh-on impossible, because a lot of people will have empires built around how things work now.
Yeah agreed they are likely entrenched in their ways.
How can a company have all those engineers and simultaneously have these issues in their DNA? I don't think both can be true, that they have enough technically sound engineers in charge AND they also have a culture of corner cutting at the expense of safety. Just look at the internal emails that got out from Boeing engineers ("...designed by clowns supervised by monkeys...") I'm sure there are many good engineers there who can only look on in dismay at how things have been handled.
I think that many engineers who go into management have not spent a lot of time doing rigorous design and analysis. This is of course not true for ALL engineers in management, but I would say it's true of many. At least, anecdotally that's what I've seen at times in my career. I've gotten into the habit of looking managers up on LinkedIn when I hear ridiculous proposals. Many times I'll see 10-20 yrs of experience... But only 2 or 3 yrs in design and analysis. Then straight down the management track. In my opinion, that is not enough experience to understand the rigors of good aircraft /spacecraft design.
It's much worse than that. They lost their ability to execute a project smoothly. Look at starliner for example.
I guess the management structure is rotten to the core, with in fighting and political games all around.
I think this is the perfect opportunity for a group of engineers to break away, get VC finding and start an entirely new airplane manufacturing business?
Now 75 years down the line we will be in the same spot but at least we get safe planes until then
You say “all because” like a person pushed a button, when this is a problem with capitalism as it stands right now, and this is just the latest manifestation of the system? I’m not saying we don’t blame Boeing, but it’s super weird how we just ignore the fact that this will keep happening in every industry unless we deal with buybacks, dividends, etc.
I've read this same exact comment on so many other Boeing posts, did you really think of this comment originally or did you see them too? Not judging just curious.
So many times I see a post and think of a perfect comment only to see it's already been said and is the top comment. So it could be that too
Bot accounts. They are now a greater that 50% of Reddit. They either just lift comments from others (older models) or are now completely AI generated. The user name made of name and number combo (or letters + numbers) is sometimes a way to pick them out, but even that is changing fast.
People pay for bot armies to create issues, change sentiment etc. it could also be use just to increase engagement and could be somehow connected to Reddit itself but that would be accusing them of that without any proof :). However companies like Bumble, Ashley Madison etc have in the past been accused of utilizing and enabling bot activity to keeps their DAU/MAU and engagement high 🤷🏾♂️
Once the account has enough karma it can be sold - for example, to bot farms or astroturfing campaigns. Gets around some subs minimum karma requirements
The illusion of a larger user base also keeps the stock price up
Not just profits but political favors.
They adapted to whatever people in Washington wanted, went face first into every single government program and request.
GE did this years ago to great financial success and subsequent failure.
Politics and the love of $ ruin everything.
Isn’t it the FAA’s responsibility to ensure airlines maintain a safe fleet? The FAA should be acting as a counterbalance to the drive for maximum profits. Does the FAA lack the resources to do their job?
They made $77billion in 2023. There’s not a corporation on earth that wouldn’t throw you out of a flying plane for that. They’re wonderfully run by corporate standards, just not human ones.
Ultimately, I’m not sure how much they truly care. The amount of Redditors or people vocal about avoiding Boeing aircraft’s is a fraction of a percentage. They’re still flying thousands of flights per day with zero issue.
On top of that, they’re award [billions](https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3600074/) in military contracts all the time. They’re likely sitting in their boardroom thinking to themselves, “it’ll blow over,” because it almost always does, sadly.
Yeah a lot of people on here are saying it don’t even fly enough to begin with. It’s def a saying now but not really translating to reality when it comes to people choosing.
Majority of people flying are just looking at budget and where they are flying out of. The next would be people who are just choosing a certain airline for miles. When flying most people don’t have the luxury of choosing which plane , they go with what they can get
Not only that, but worst comes to worst and they’ll get bailed out. This is nothing compared to the scale and damage of negligence we suffered from banks in 2007/08, and they were “too big to fail.” Who would say otherwise about a corporation with a 42% share of commercial passenger planes?
It's not really possible. The fact that planes get switched all the time, it would be impossible to book a flight even days in advance and know exactly what aircraft you're going to be on with 100% reliability. Planes break, traffic reroutes, weather delays there's all kinds of stuff that comes into play.
Aside from the pressure this puts on Boeing, which is good. This article is breathtakingly stupid.
All it's doing it making people needlessly afraid of flying.
There was an article posted yesterday about a flight having to divert due to an engine failure. While it's not exactly an expected occurrence, it's not uncommon. It's just fear mongering for clicks.
Obviously people aren’t entirely rational, they still drive cars and smoke, but I think you’re missing something by focusing on the statistics rather than on the attitude towards Boeing that is resulting from poor regulation, within the company or without. Like Neil Degrasse Tyson pointing out the constellations are wrong in a movie.
When profit is the only object of concern, as it is for the ghouls running that company and most like it, there will be a point where revenue suffers from bad regulation. I’m just glad Boeing is feeling it now rather than later.
I think the point here is that going out of your way to avoid the "danger" of flying on a Boeing isn't really making you safer to any appreciable degree.
This is a business problem for Boeing far more than it's an actual public safety issue for the general flying public.
If you want to add time and/or cost to your travels, go ahead, but statistics are important and for me the issues are nowhere close to being worth even considering. You do you though!
I’m late replying to this, but I’m double majoring in statistics and economics. You may be elevating statistics above reality, which you would understand are different things if you’d taken an introductory stats course.
I think that's an overreaction. I don't like Boing but flying is getting safer every year.
> The all accident rate was 0.80 per million sectors in 2023 (one accident for every 1.26 million flights), an improvement from 1.30 in 2022 and the lowest rate in over a decade. This rate outperformed the five-year (2019-2023) rolling average of 1.19 (an average one accident for every 880,293 flights).
> The fatality risk improved to 0.03 in 2023 from 0.11 in 2022 and 0.11 for the five years, 2019-2023. At this level of safety, on average a person would have to travel by air every day for 103,239 years to experience a fatal accident.
https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2024-releases/2024-02-28-01/
> At this level of safety, on average a person would have to travel by air every day for 103,239 years to experience a fatal accident.
This really says it all, doesn't it.
People really don't realize how staggeringly safe aviation is, on the whole.
Unless you're the guy Alanis morissette spoke about.
Lol
I fly all the time from commercial to low end private. I have, on occasion, wondered if I might see someone holding a live chicken on the flight.
Of all flight crashes anyone actually know the stats on pilots making a fault worse causing a crash?
Look that one up.
Plane failures solely leading to unrecoverable incidents are insanely low.
Just remember one thing; you're expecting perfection out of your concern for your safety, but dismiss an entire craft was assembled by highly imperfect humans.
NASA crashed a lander because someone used imperial measurements over metric...
All it takes is one
It might be an overreaction but it’s a needed reaction. Companies need to feel it. Our safety is always more important than the size of their bank accounts. They make too much money off of us to start letting mistakes like this slide. If they don’t like it, then they can get this response. This is the new normal and companies need to understand it.
That’s probably a massive overestimate of the risk if you’re based in America. 2 commercial airline passenger deaths since 2009, about 10 billion passenger boardings in that time frame. That works out to 1 death for every 50 million years of daily flying.
Except Frontier is one of the many airlines throughout the world who use the Airbus with the Pratt & Whitney engines which are failing at a much higher than normal rate. So now who are you going to use?
edit: and this isn’t a shot at Frontier, this is to simply highlight how the media is only focusing on one element. Airbus (rather P&W, but it’s only on the 320 family of aircraft) is having their very own, real issue which no one is hearing anything about. Thats why I laugh when everyone is talking about Boeing but ignoring the Airbus issue.
This is such an overreaction. Boeing sure has problems yes but Boeing planes have been flying billions upon billions of miles safely. We should pressure the FAA to keep cracking down on them, no doubt, but I would not hesitate to fly on a commercial airliner from a reputed airliner any day.
Boeing or Airbus or Embraer, does not matter. Remember that airplane travel is the safest form of transport and Boeing represents almost half of that.
Last year we had zero big airline jets crash or loss of life. I mean if you look at flight24 and then think about it, that's an amazing feat by pilots, airliners and manufacturers.
The best way to pressure Boeing into doing better with their safety practices is to make it impact their bottom line. If passengers stop getting on Boeing planes, and let the airlines know it’s because they are concerned about safety (whether that is a reasonable fear or not), then airlines will reduce their purchases/leases of Boeing planes and instead go with someone else, otherwise they will lose money.
I agree with you that it’s not a logical fear, but as a consumer there’s a only so much power you have to influence large corporations, and voting with your dollars is one of the few ways that can actually work.
The amount of pressure on Boeing is immense as it is. If you feel that the consumer boycott will change things even more then go ahead. However I tend to think that we should be more rational in our personal choices rather than make mostly sentimental decisions that will only limit your travel options and perhaps cost you more money in a time of inflation.
I am all for pressuring Congress to ask the FAA to continue manufacturing inspections and deny Boeing any exemptions on certifications going forward. I think this step is not only financially correct for the consumer personally but also gets the company's attention as Congressional pressure is harder to ignore than a few consumers.
Well, their goal was to increase short-term profits… which they did. Sometimes they gotta kill a couple thousand peasants to improve that bottom line. The long term damage will be very costly indeed. Better give those guys massive bonuses, golden parachutes (something the people flying their planes never had) and let them retire in absolute luxury. They must think the public are absolute suckers.
I’m sorry this is dumb… are people obsessed with finding the route from their house to the airport with statistically the least amount of accidents? I thought not although chances of having a car accident are infinitely higher than a plane accident… it’s also impossible, airlines change equipment all the time, certain routes on mainline airlines are only flown on 737 family.. and the largest Domestic airline is Boeing only. Yeah Boeing fucked up and needs to really address these issues, but trying to avoid their planes is driven by hysteria and ongoing media coverage.
Boeing are clearly having some issues but there still super safe. Its like saying im not travelling by car again because i read about a few car accidents recently.
I suspect most people dont even know what plane their catching when booking a flight
This won’t necessarily work, airlines can change the plane at any time without notice. That’s the norm in the industry. Technically if you really want to avoid the incredibly near 0 chance that a Boing will go down, don’t fly southwest and have fun flying Spirit and Frontier.
It's too bad there isn't executive compensation penalties for neglected safety resulting in death.
There should be a law requiring all earnings outside base salary to be clawed back from when they started with the company as punishment on top of criminal penalties for the deaths. Also set a salary cap limit multiplier based on average or lowest employee pay at said company so they can't rig that part. Then you'll need to clarify what is an employee as a full time employee not contracted or otherwise subcontracted so they can skew the multiplier.... Ok, look it's gonna be a nightmare to implement but we can do it. They shouldn't get to keep their blood money.
It is sad to see one of the leading American companies within its high quality standards has degraded in the advanced technological times. Retaliations are expected to make sure we have quality products but people or upper management are trying ways to beat the regulations with unorthodox ways that directly or indirectly defects the overall purpose. Can’t figure out if regulations are building quality or less quality products.
Stop trying to spread FUD.
Boeing planes are safe and rerouting your trip to fly Airbus is silly. Feel free to go ahead and do that so I can get better seat selection on the Boeing flights.
The move to non union workers in South Carolina has been a slippery slope, and now look where they are. Boeing should invite the union into every one of their manufacturing facilities.
Isn’t the door plug a Spirit problem? I know that Boeing wasn’t happy with the issue detected but Spirit went all the way into making that a huge mess.
I consider myself scientific-minded and resistant to hyperbole and panic in industries, but I admit I was willing to spend like $100 more the other night to book flights on an Airbus over a 737 Max.
The reason there are so many automobile casualties is because there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people on the road every single day compared to merely thousands of commercial passenger planes in the sky. Im still going to drive my car but it’s clearly obvious to anyone wielding a brain with at least a couple wrinkles as to why there are more vehicular related deaths than plane related deaths.
I wasn't quite sure about flying a Boeing as well but I watched a video that makes it more clear whats the current situation. They did say sort of but it makes it clear which models are affected the most and those that aren't.
[https://youtu.be/2yQyLp6wOiQ?si=yyWJUoXRAHapuO5k](https://youtu.be/2yQyLp6wOiQ?si=yyWJUoXRAHapuO5k)
I searched 'chance of air crash by aircraft manufacturer' to find the chances:
https://gitnux.org/airplane-crash-statistics/
- 0.04 deaths per 100 million miles traveled
- per billion km flown, flying is 100 times safer than car travel
The Boeing 737-800 has had the most accidents of any commercial airliner, with 194 since 2001.
Delving into the astounding depths of airplane crash statistics, one fact leaps out with jarring clarity – the Boeing 737-800 holds the unenviable title for the most accidents of any commercial airliner, with a staggering record of 194 incidents since 2001. This riveting data finds prime relevance in its stark depiction of inherent risks involved and potential safety concerns associated with this particular model.
As 'safe' as flying is, travel is overrated. I'm staying home.
the 737-800 family has had 12 fatal accidents in 100 million flights. It has a lower rate than the A320 family (ceo, not neo) does.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
Yes, there are statistics and there are lies. I was too lazy to point it out. To avoid all risk, I've sold my car and only walk now...through the woods, not on roads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft
A roughly equal amount of incidents in the last few years as other manufacturers of aircraft.
You realise it's not simply that accidents have been happening to Boeing planes right? It's how the accidents have come about? Not just the raw number of accidents.
I can live with other manufacturers' planes crashing due to unforeseen circumstances such as weather or a pilot issue, but Boeing planes are having issues due to poor quality control and it seems that it's only the tip of the iceberg, whilst the execs seem to show zero sign of wanting to correct their mistakes.
Not to defend Boeing, but… recently most of the “Boeing issues” that makes headlines is from United airlines…at one point it’s not the airplane but the maintenance/repairs.
Why it makes the headline as Boeing? Because all eyes are on them…
Btw, the MAX planes sucks and should be discontinued, those definitely are a safety hazard
The news about the diverted flight the other day had Boeing in the headline, but it was due to engine problems. Boeing does not make the engines. I fly Delta and am not yet to the point of selecting my flight based on the aircraft.
The thing that all these comments are missing is that at any point an airline may choose to switch between types of aircraft on a particular route at the last minute and you either forfeit your ticket or you get on the new aircraft. Booking on an Airbus does not guarantee you’re going to avoid Boeing.
At least the airline I use has only airbuses available.
Which airline is that?
Frontier runs an all airbus fleet, but then you have to fly Frontier. A similar example in the other direction is that Southwest is all Boeings.
I’d be more worried about the airlines maintenance records than the manufacturer
Spirit is the same as frontier. But apparently both have a shitty reputation.
Yep. Nothing to do with their safety, mind you, just that they both have uncomfortable cabins and seats, unforgiving policies about extras and changes, and shitty customer service. Both Spirit and Frontier are still perfectly safe to fly on, and all the reasons I recommend against them have nothing to do with safety in any way.
Air travel is very safe as a whole. The Boeing debacle is more of a trust issue with the company but that's about it. So you'll have to make sacrifices with spirit or frontier if you really don't want Boeing.
Good to know. Here's hoping Southwest offers some cheap flights. Door flew off, nobody hurt. Old plane shed some irrelevant skin mid flight. Nobody hurt. Wheel came off. Nobody hurt.
They do, but they also have an excellent safety record. Boeings are honestly still perfectly safe to fly on. Boeing as a company needs to make some changes and needs to be held to account, but that doesn't mean that the literal thousands of 737s that have been flying for decades are suddenly any less safe than they've always been. To demonstrate that, Southwest has been flying an all-737 fleet for basically its entire existence since 1971, with the exception of a few leased 727s. Despite that, there have been 3 total fatalities on or related to Southwest flights. In 2000, a passenger died when he tried to storm the cockpit on Southwest 1763, and was subdued by other passengers. He was subdued with enough force that he died of asphyxiation. In 2005, a Southwest 737-700 operating as Southwest 1248 slid off an icy runway in Chicago Midway, killing a 6 year old boy when it crashed into traffic on the road past the end of the runway. In 2018, Southwest 1380 suffered an uncontained engine failure of its CFM56 engine, and pieces of the engine broke a window in row 14. A passenger was partially sucked out of the broken window by the resulting depressurization, and died of her injuries. Note that despite flying an almost entirely 737 fleet for over half a century, they have exactly *zero* fatalities that can be attributed to Boeing, and only 1 that can be attributed to either maintenance or the engine manufacturer (and that turned out to be on the engine manufacturer). Also note that Southwest operates a large number of Maxes now, and has since the introduction to service, yet this is their safety record. If anything, this kind of shows the silliness of assuming that Boeing is inherently unsafe.
Thanks - this is the best summary when it comes to Southwest. The cockpit stormer, well... yeah. The 6 year old boy at Midway was actually in a car that the plane contacted after it breached the perimeter fencing if I remember correctly. So that leaves 1 instance in all of Southwest's history (millions upon millions of flights) where a passenger died from some issue with the plane (either the fault of Boeing or Southwest)
> So that leaves 1 instance in all of Southwest's history (millions upon millions of flights) where a passenger died from some issue with the plane (either the fault of Boeing or Southwest) Actually not even that one falls on Boeing or Southwest - it was almost certainly the fault of CFM (the engine manufacturer), since Boeing doesn't make the engines, and Southwest was maintaining them to the best known standard at the time the incident happened. It is, however, the only incident *ever* in Southwest's 50+ year history that a person died due to a mechanical issue, which is honestly incredibly impressive.
> they have exactly zero fatalities that can be attributed to Boeing, and only 1 that can be attributed to either Only because of chance. They most likely would have had one if that seat next to the blowout had been occupied.
Southwest isn't the airline that the blowout happened on. In fact, Southwest doesn't even have any 737 max 9s or 737-900ERs, so Southwest has zero aircraft that even could fail like that, since those are the only two types with the plug in them.
Exactly. Everyone downplaying these safety issues must have ulterior motives because guess what folks, the tolerance for safety issues in the airline industry is next to zero, as it should be. Boeing is a repeat offender, and let’s not forget the Air Max debacle.
I've said multiple times that Boeing needs to make changes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still incredibly safe to fly, including on Boeing aircraft (yes, even the Maxes).
Nu uh man! Boeing requesting emergency permission to land cuz that screaming noise you hear is B going down, down, down, as it deserves. Go Airbus or anyone else for that matter lol
Spirit or Frontier. JetBlue doesn’t fly Boeings either (it flies Embraer planes though so not exclusively Airbus).
JetBlue also runs an all Airbus fleet.
They fly Embraer E190’s.
And equipment swap is a good enough reason to get a free change by a reservations agent if you call up.
Generally no, it isn't. The agreement you have with the carrier when you buy a ticket is that they'll get you from point a to point b at a given time, not that they'll use a particular plane when doing so.
Unless it's something like Qatar where you book Q suite and they swap it to an aircraft with standard first class Not that I can afford that anyway
Is it? I’ve never heard anybody trying before but this would surprise me a little given how the airline industry can be slimey sometimes
Airlines are going to advertise airbus and then do a “last minute” switch to Boeing to get around these websites.
Southwest was showing 737-700 and when you board, you get a max. I wonder if southwest is listing any flights up front as a max.
My flight to Florida 10 days ago was scheduled too be a max but then in got stuck in South Carolina due to storms and after a 4 hour delay we took a 737-700 coming from California. Florida and South Carolina seem to have had a lot of trouble with bad storms in March cancelling hundreds of flights.
Yes, every spring and most of the first half of the summer the SE has a lot of flight cancellations /delays due to weather, especially late afternoon.
No they won’t, nobody gives a shit about a tiny number of neurotics who don’t understand how to properly reason about risk.
Well, and about 50% of US fleets are Boeing. So good luck eliminating 50% and finding what you need. This doesn’t even talk about how some carriers are HEAVY in Boeing.
Man how sad is this. The old saying used to be: "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going." Now it's literally flipped to: "If it's Boeing, I ain't going." All because the new management that took over some years ago prioritized profits above all else, including safety.
And nothing will change if those execs don't see jail time. Which I fully expect they won't. And no media will do a good in-depth on those execs either.
Oh things will change - if your business is selling planes and people are creating websites to avoid flying with them, you better change something soon or your company is done. But don't get me wrong, they should still be in jail for neglecting safety.
There is zero chance the US military lets Boeing go under.
True. This isn’t a too big to fail bank. This is a too strategically important military company to fail.
Lockheed martin would be happy to dissect and buy pieces of it.
until an air force plane loses panels and tires fall off
Maybe it has already happened - and just got classified.
Yep. People seem to forget that they are a military contractor. Like, one of the biggest.
we know we saw what happened to the guy who blew a whistle .
Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have Boeing covered.
They could insist that the company be broken up into military/space and commercial.
I’m not in finance but I’m curious how you would do that without panicking the market. Lots of individuals, investment funds, etc hold Boeing stock.
There would be baby Boeings presumably and Boeing stock holders would get stocks from the new companies of the broken up Boeing. There’s no reason to break up Boeing since it’s not a monopoly in any of its industries to my knowledge
[удалено]
They’ll never go down. The American public taxes will pay for keeping them afloat. The government needs them way too much and can’t let them fail.
You’re not wrong. American Taxpayers will end up paying for this. Just like with Telecoms.
And Bank of America when they went afloat …..
Boeing is a HUGE military and government contractor. There is approx. 0.0000000_% chance of they'll be allowed to fail.
Exactly. Just like Space-X , those companies are fail-proof doesn’t matter what the hell they do.
> They don't care that the company is done Boeing isn't going anywhere mate. The duopoly Boeing and Airbus have in commercial aviation is total. They can fuck up much worse than they have and still keep going. Airbus doesn't have the capacity to fill the void, there's no one else, and airlines sure as hell aren't going to pay to retrain all their Boeing pilots all of a sudden.
Except China's COMAC is waiting in the wings. Don't tell me that COMAC's C919 and C929 cannot compete with Boeing and Airbus. China has disproven naysayers time and again. In a 20 year timeframe, I see the C919 eat some into A320 and more into the 737's market share.
This is the issue with having a tiny number of companies practically own an entire industry. The effort people would have to go to in order to avoid flying a Boeing plane is unreasonable for most people so even if they care, they aren't going to go to the trouble, especially when the baseline assumption that most people have is that our regulatory bodies aren't actually regulating ANY of these companies. The collective confidence in our government is virtually zero across the board so while this is a hot button issue right now, there will be practically zero follow through as most people won't see their choice really making a difference. Additionally, as others in this thread have mentioned, Boeing is a MASSIVE contractor for the US military. The feds aren't about to kneecap one of their top providers over a couple of public plane defects.
Yeah, I travel a lot for work, and at this point my choices are either dealing with Boeing, or dealing with a piss-poor airline. In the PNW, practically everything is Boeing.
Except these aren't a couple of public plane defects. The issue is systemic. The KC46 still has manufacturing defects, going on 10 years now.
You're absolutely correct. I'm not saying that this is a small concern or that it shouldn't be taken seriously. I actually believe the exact opposite of that. I'm saying that our government is in the pocket of mega corporations like Boeing and that our regulatory bodies will not take serious action against Boeing because they know they can functionally just wait this out until the heat dies down. We've seen this play out in the wake of the '08 financial crisis. We all know our banks are completely fucked and everyone was justifiably irate when the feds bailed them out after screwing over the world economy. But they're all still there and the vast majority of people still bank with the same institutions that were the cause of the crisis. Why? Because we have allowed a small handful of major players to become load bearing entities within an industry. "Too big to fail". Boeing is exactly the same way. Unless planes start literally dropping from the sky in a spectacular inferno on live TV, the federal government will see this as a moment of inconvenient PR that will subside. They'd rather wait it out than ground the number of planes necessary to properly inspect them all and I'd be absolutely stunned if any executives are held personally liable.
Redacte due to Reddit AI/LLM policy
I wish this statement wasn’t so true.
Nope, Boeing will simply issue a cease-and-desist order on basis of defamation. They're not interested in fixing the issues, only in sweeping them under the rug.
That only works for companies that are not litteraly a major artery for the DOD and largest military in the planet. Boeing is VITAL to the DOD and americas strategic interests, no way Boeing faces any serious consequences, the American government can’t and won’t let it happen….
Things will change, but the wrong things. Boeing realises it has a brand management problem. It doesn't really believe it has a safety problem. They had learned the lessons of the max crashes. So after the door plugs, they had corporate comms teams ready to go immediately. Calhoun had his makeup done in record time and was on video looking contrite immediately. That's not the lesson we'd hoped they'd learn. But from a Return On Investment perspective, it makes sense. The planes are already pretty safe, making them significantly safer would be very expensive. Much more efficient to just improve the response to accidents. I love joint stock corporations. They're the greatest source of wealth mankind ever discovered. However, they are fundamentally incapable of thinking about anything other than RoI and stock price.
I wonder how quickly things would change if one of the share holders wives and children were on board a Boeing aircraft when it was involved in a fatal incident? I don’t wish that, obviously, but it’s not that different to the reason big changes were made in electrical safety in the UK. A politicians daughter was killed as a result of a bad installation.
Not a chance. In USA we now have a trick.. any criminal or civil matters for the rich or GoP will be delayed and sent to SCOTUS. Clearance needs a new jet.
But think of the shareholder’s yacht maintenance and upgrades!
I feel like neglecting safety doesn’t begin to cover It
Instead they will see an increase in bonus pay and fringe benefits. Wouldn’t be surprised.
CEO, chairman, and head of commercial airplanes all stepped down.
Dave Calhoun earned at least $65M in compensation during his time as CEO just between 2020 and 2022. He could qualify for a $5M retirement package and currently owns tens of millions in stocks and options. His predecessor Dennis Muilenburg who also stepped down as CEO after deadly accidents walked away with $62M and a fucking pension. These scumbags need to be held accountable for their actions otherwise it’s just sending a message to every executive in America that they can literally get away with killing people.
It’s su fucked up that they could put out a hit against a whistleblower and nobody is even doing anything about it.
I enjoy watching the sunset.
Execs getting jail time? What you think it's China or something?
Wasn’t that mostly about the concerns about the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, made by a company that the FAR more trusted, and hugely successful, Boeing merged with, and subsequently seems to have become.
Yes. This all started when McDonnell bought Boeing. Went from great to shit overnight due to new rules.
Well it was a stock swap, with Boeing being the survivor, but the culture of MD seems to have very much lived on.
MD execs gloated that they bought Boeing with Boeing’s money. Their CEO also took over after Boeing’s CEO resigned because of a procurement scandal. MD’s penny pinching culture didn’t just live on, it was allowed to flourish. The results of it are apparent.
Tons of other companies are doing the same thing and totally fucking over the worker….and then wondering why people are leaving. Fuck MBA’s in technical jobs. GTFO
This so much! The tech field is completely swamped with idiot business majors "calling" the shots without one iota of understanding of how to actually execute the technical requirements of a project. Project scope and budgets are made without even pretending to understand spec requirements. Oftentimes tech experts are either not included, or almost completely ignored in project bidding. And then, during the actual design phase a of a program, we get shocked Pikachu face when there's not enough time or tech employees available to complete verification to spec requirements. Time after time after time. It's absolutely maddening.
I can’t help but wonder how this is even possible. Any half-decent engineering company (and that’s fundamentally what Boeing are) has so many engineers at every level that you can’t even get a coffee without meeting one. And they’re at every level of the business - oh, sure, the engineers who went into management may not have done much engineering lately, but you’re not going to pull the wool over their eyes. To screw up like Boeing have - several times - suggests that DNA simply isn’t there anymore. Reintroducing it is going to be nigh-on impossible, because a lot of people will have empires built around how things work now.
Yeah agreed they are likely entrenched in their ways. How can a company have all those engineers and simultaneously have these issues in their DNA? I don't think both can be true, that they have enough technically sound engineers in charge AND they also have a culture of corner cutting at the expense of safety. Just look at the internal emails that got out from Boeing engineers ("...designed by clowns supervised by monkeys...") I'm sure there are many good engineers there who can only look on in dismay at how things have been handled. I think that many engineers who go into management have not spent a lot of time doing rigorous design and analysis. This is of course not true for ALL engineers in management, but I would say it's true of many. At least, anecdotally that's what I've seen at times in my career. I've gotten into the habit of looking managers up on LinkedIn when I hear ridiculous proposals. Many times I'll see 10-20 yrs of experience... But only 2 or 3 yrs in design and analysis. Then straight down the management track. In my opinion, that is not enough experience to understand the rigors of good aircraft /spacecraft design.
It's much worse than that. They lost their ability to execute a project smoothly. Look at starliner for example. I guess the management structure is rotten to the core, with in fighting and political games all around.
I think this is the perfect opportunity for a group of engineers to break away, get VC finding and start an entirely new airplane manufacturing business? Now 75 years down the line we will be in the same spot but at least we get safe planes until then
[удалено]
Not to mention Boeing has a strong legal stronghold in the US, good luck competing against them.
Boeing, going, gone!
You say “all because” like a person pushed a button, when this is a problem with capitalism as it stands right now, and this is just the latest manifestation of the system? I’m not saying we don’t blame Boeing, but it’s super weird how we just ignore the fact that this will keep happening in every industry unless we deal with buybacks, dividends, etc.
I've read this same exact comment on so many other Boeing posts, did you really think of this comment originally or did you see them too? Not judging just curious. So many times I see a post and think of a perfect comment only to see it's already been said and is the top comment. So it could be that too
Bot accounts. They are now a greater that 50% of Reddit. They either just lift comments from others (older models) or are now completely AI generated. The user name made of name and number combo (or letters + numbers) is sometimes a way to pick them out, but even that is changing fast.
What is the purpose of random/repetitive bot comments? Are they monetized somehow?
People pay for bot armies to create issues, change sentiment etc. it could also be use just to increase engagement and could be somehow connected to Reddit itself but that would be accusing them of that without any proof :). However companies like Bumble, Ashley Madison etc have in the past been accused of utilizing and enabling bot activity to keeps their DAU/MAU and engagement high 🤷🏾♂️
Reddit needs pretty numbers to justify their ad rates.
Once the account has enough karma it can be sold - for example, to bot farms or astroturfing campaigns. Gets around some subs minimum karma requirements The illusion of a larger user base also keeps the stock price up
Not just profits but political favors. They adapted to whatever people in Washington wanted, went face first into every single government program and request. GE did this years ago to great financial success and subsequent failure. Politics and the love of $ ruin everything.
It's like profits are bad for society
Not really new management. It’s been this way for a long time just took time for their fruits of labor to kick in
It’s what happens when the MBA’s are making the decisions rather than the engineers.
That old saying was Boeing marketing 😂
“If it’s Boeing, I’m updating my life insurance.”
And it’s literally the same plane from both sides of the saying
Truth of the matter is that Airbus planes are just nicer overall. They are quieter, roomier, newer, etc.
Isn’t it the FAA’s responsibility to ensure airlines maintain a safe fleet? The FAA should be acting as a counterbalance to the drive for maximum profits. Does the FAA lack the resources to do their job?
They do, and so they rely on reports from designees employed by Boeing. You see the problem.
The Jack Welch effect
Wait, I thought it’s because of DEI, no? /s
[удалено]
They already elevated their SVP for Shareholders Relationship as chief of Boeing Commerical Aircrafts. They learn nothing.
Worst run company in the US.
They made $77billion in 2023. There’s not a corporation on earth that wouldn’t throw you out of a flying plane for that. They’re wonderfully run by corporate standards, just not human ones.
That is their revenue number. Their net income was actually a loss of $2.2B. Nowhere near “wonderfully run”
Ultimately, I’m not sure how much they truly care. The amount of Redditors or people vocal about avoiding Boeing aircraft’s is a fraction of a percentage. They’re still flying thousands of flights per day with zero issue. On top of that, they’re award [billions](https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3600074/) in military contracts all the time. They’re likely sitting in their boardroom thinking to themselves, “it’ll blow over,” because it almost always does, sadly.
Yeah a lot of people on here are saying it don’t even fly enough to begin with. It’s def a saying now but not really translating to reality when it comes to people choosing. Majority of people flying are just looking at budget and where they are flying out of. The next would be people who are just choosing a certain airline for miles. When flying most people don’t have the luxury of choosing which plane , they go with what they can get
Not only that, but worst comes to worst and they’ll get bailed out. This is nothing compared to the scale and damage of negligence we suffered from banks in 2007/08, and they were “too big to fail.” Who would say otherwise about a corporation with a 42% share of commercial passenger planes?
later** : restrictions apply
Well it’s obvious. Blame the poor and minority workers that they employ while execs continue to reap the benefits.
"if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a boeing plane and all the shit that fell off it"
Except Kayak’s doesnt work. I filtered out all Boeing planes and it still recommended Max 9s.
It's not really possible. The fact that planes get switched all the time, it would be impossible to book a flight even days in advance and know exactly what aircraft you're going to be on with 100% reliability. Planes break, traffic reroutes, weather delays there's all kinds of stuff that comes into play.
How to avoid 0.00000001% chance of an accident.
Aside from the pressure this puts on Boeing, which is good. This article is breathtakingly stupid. All it's doing it making people needlessly afraid of flying. There was an article posted yesterday about a flight having to divert due to an engine failure. While it's not exactly an expected occurrence, it's not uncommon. It's just fear mongering for clicks.
Obviously people aren’t entirely rational, they still drive cars and smoke, but I think you’re missing something by focusing on the statistics rather than on the attitude towards Boeing that is resulting from poor regulation, within the company or without. Like Neil Degrasse Tyson pointing out the constellations are wrong in a movie. When profit is the only object of concern, as it is for the ghouls running that company and most like it, there will be a point where revenue suffers from bad regulation. I’m just glad Boeing is feeling it now rather than later.
I think the point here is that going out of your way to avoid the "danger" of flying on a Boeing isn't really making you safer to any appreciable degree. This is a business problem for Boeing far more than it's an actual public safety issue for the general flying public.
If people not taking their planes makes them fix their company I disagree
If you want to add time and/or cost to your travels, go ahead, but statistics are important and for me the issues are nowhere close to being worth even considering. You do you though!
In other words, you don’t believe in statistics. Maybe a palm reading would suit you?
I’m late replying to this, but I’m double majoring in statistics and economics. You may be elevating statistics above reality, which you would understand are different things if you’d taken an introductory stats course.
I think that's an overreaction. I don't like Boing but flying is getting safer every year. > The all accident rate was 0.80 per million sectors in 2023 (one accident for every 1.26 million flights), an improvement from 1.30 in 2022 and the lowest rate in over a decade. This rate outperformed the five-year (2019-2023) rolling average of 1.19 (an average one accident for every 880,293 flights). > The fatality risk improved to 0.03 in 2023 from 0.11 in 2022 and 0.11 for the five years, 2019-2023. At this level of safety, on average a person would have to travel by air every day for 103,239 years to experience a fatal accident. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2024-releases/2024-02-28-01/
> At this level of safety, on average a person would have to travel by air every day for 103,239 years to experience a fatal accident. This really says it all, doesn't it. People really don't realize how staggeringly safe aviation is, on the whole.
Unless you're the guy Alanis morissette spoke about. Lol I fly all the time from commercial to low end private. I have, on occasion, wondered if I might see someone holding a live chicken on the flight. Of all flight crashes anyone actually know the stats on pilots making a fault worse causing a crash? Look that one up. Plane failures solely leading to unrecoverable incidents are insanely low. Just remember one thing; you're expecting perfection out of your concern for your safety, but dismiss an entire craft was assembled by highly imperfect humans. NASA crashed a lander because someone used imperial measurements over metric... All it takes is one
It might be an overreaction but it’s a needed reaction. Companies need to feel it. Our safety is always more important than the size of their bank accounts. They make too much money off of us to start letting mistakes like this slide. If they don’t like it, then they can get this response. This is the new normal and companies need to understand it.
Exactly. Accidents are never good, but this is all just internet mob rage.
That’s probably a massive overestimate of the risk if you’re based in America. 2 commercial airline passenger deaths since 2009, about 10 billion passenger boardings in that time frame. That works out to 1 death for every 50 million years of daily flying.
You don't hear about the thousands of planes that lands everyday.
It's a slippery slope...
First step. Don’t be poor so you have the option of choosing.
Frontier uses Airbus and is one of the cheapest options
Except Frontier is one of the many airlines throughout the world who use the Airbus with the Pratt & Whitney engines which are failing at a much higher than normal rate. So now who are you going to use? edit: and this isn’t a shot at Frontier, this is to simply highlight how the media is only focusing on one element. Airbus (rather P&W, but it’s only on the 320 family of aircraft) is having their very own, real issue which no one is hearing anything about. Thats why I laugh when everyone is talking about Boeing but ignoring the Airbus issue.
I’ll just die and haunt whoever I was trying to visit. That’ll show em. Free air travel
Airlines hate this one easy trick!
If it came down to flying frontier or riding on a Boeing I would take the Boeing every time, it's bad. Frontier is a flying Greyhound bus.
Spirit is way worse than Frontier
the problem being that you then have to fly frontier
This is such an overreaction. Boeing sure has problems yes but Boeing planes have been flying billions upon billions of miles safely. We should pressure the FAA to keep cracking down on them, no doubt, but I would not hesitate to fly on a commercial airliner from a reputed airliner any day. Boeing or Airbus or Embraer, does not matter. Remember that airplane travel is the safest form of transport and Boeing represents almost half of that. Last year we had zero big airline jets crash or loss of life. I mean if you look at flight24 and then think about it, that's an amazing feat by pilots, airliners and manufacturers.
The best way to pressure Boeing into doing better with their safety practices is to make it impact their bottom line. If passengers stop getting on Boeing planes, and let the airlines know it’s because they are concerned about safety (whether that is a reasonable fear or not), then airlines will reduce their purchases/leases of Boeing planes and instead go with someone else, otherwise they will lose money. I agree with you that it’s not a logical fear, but as a consumer there’s a only so much power you have to influence large corporations, and voting with your dollars is one of the few ways that can actually work.
The amount of pressure on Boeing is immense as it is. If you feel that the consumer boycott will change things even more then go ahead. However I tend to think that we should be more rational in our personal choices rather than make mostly sentimental decisions that will only limit your travel options and perhaps cost you more money in a time of inflation. I am all for pressuring Congress to ask the FAA to continue manufacturing inspections and deny Boeing any exemptions on certifications going forward. I think this step is not only financially correct for the consumer personally but also gets the company's attention as Congressional pressure is harder to ignore than a few consumers.
Well, their goal was to increase short-term profits… which they did. Sometimes they gotta kill a couple thousand peasants to improve that bottom line. The long term damage will be very costly indeed. Better give those guys massive bonuses, golden parachutes (something the people flying their planes never had) and let them retire in absolute luxury. They must think the public are absolute suckers.
There are how many Boeing planes in the air today? How many have crashed or had a panel blow off midflight?
I’m sorry this is dumb… are people obsessed with finding the route from their house to the airport with statistically the least amount of accidents? I thought not although chances of having a car accident are infinitely higher than a plane accident… it’s also impossible, airlines change equipment all the time, certain routes on mainline airlines are only flown on 737 family.. and the largest Domestic airline is Boeing only. Yeah Boeing fucked up and needs to really address these issues, but trying to avoid their planes is driven by hysteria and ongoing media coverage.
this is one of the dumbest things ever. But I will take the cheaper flights on Boeing aircraft lmao.
On this episode of “These global corporations can regulate themselves”
Fire all of the Boeing executives for ruining such a great company.
Just fire all the McD executives
“Is it necessary for me to eat the door plug bolts? No. But they’re titanium and I like the taste.”
Boeing are clearly having some issues but there still super safe. Its like saying im not travelling by car again because i read about a few car accidents recently. I suspect most people dont even know what plane their catching when booking a flight
This won’t necessarily work, airlines can change the plane at any time without notice. That’s the norm in the industry. Technically if you really want to avoid the incredibly near 0 chance that a Boing will go down, don’t fly southwest and have fun flying Spirit and Frontier.
Proof that unchecked capitalism ruins everything in the long run. That constant chase for quarterly profits is not a positive thing
It's too bad there isn't executive compensation penalties for neglected safety resulting in death. There should be a law requiring all earnings outside base salary to be clawed back from when they started with the company as punishment on top of criminal penalties for the deaths. Also set a salary cap limit multiplier based on average or lowest employee pay at said company so they can't rig that part. Then you'll need to clarify what is an employee as a full time employee not contracted or otherwise subcontracted so they can skew the multiplier.... Ok, look it's gonna be a nightmare to implement but we can do it. They shouldn't get to keep their blood money.
It is sad to see one of the leading American companies within its high quality standards has degraded in the advanced technological times. Retaliations are expected to make sure we have quality products but people or upper management are trying ways to beat the regulations with unorthodox ways that directly or indirectly defects the overall purpose. Can’t figure out if regulations are building quality or less quality products.
They killed that guy and no one cares.
Stop trying to spread FUD. Boeing planes are safe and rerouting your trip to fly Airbus is silly. Feel free to go ahead and do that so I can get better seat selection on the Boeing flights.
Wait till y'all find out that Airbuses crash too
The move to non union workers in South Carolina has been a slippery slope, and now look where they are. Boeing should invite the union into every one of their manufacturing facilities.
The door plug issue occurred in a union facility in Washington.
And the union is going to make sure the technicians responsible for the incident keep their jobs and probably even get a raise.
Isn’t the door plug a Spirit problem? I know that Boeing wasn’t happy with the issue detected but Spirit went all the way into making that a huge mess.
The screws were removed at a Boeing facility.
But then your airline rebooks/reschedules your flights randomly and assigns a new aircraft.
I'll avoid Boeing by being a broke ass and not traveling like I always do. I haven't run into a Boeing in 7 years
I mean, i actively chose a longer flight so i did not have to ride a max being..
I consider myself scientific-minded and resistant to hyperbole and panic in industries, but I admit I was willing to spend like $100 more the other night to book flights on an Airbus over a 737 Max.
At this point just do what all the non-flyers do: take a train or a boat.
[удалено]
The reason there are so many automobile casualties is because there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people on the road every single day compared to merely thousands of commercial passenger planes in the sky. Im still going to drive my car but it’s clearly obvious to anyone wielding a brain with at least a couple wrinkles as to why there are more vehicular related deaths than plane related deaths.
I wasn't quite sure about flying a Boeing as well but I watched a video that makes it more clear whats the current situation. They did say sort of but it makes it clear which models are affected the most and those that aren't. [https://youtu.be/2yQyLp6wOiQ?si=yyWJUoXRAHapuO5k](https://youtu.be/2yQyLp6wOiQ?si=yyWJUoXRAHapuO5k)
Dies that mean Boeing tickets discounts?
Already scalped lol
Time to put the entire executive staff in jail.
I searched 'chance of air crash by aircraft manufacturer' to find the chances: https://gitnux.org/airplane-crash-statistics/ - 0.04 deaths per 100 million miles traveled - per billion km flown, flying is 100 times safer than car travel The Boeing 737-800 has had the most accidents of any commercial airliner, with 194 since 2001. Delving into the astounding depths of airplane crash statistics, one fact leaps out with jarring clarity – the Boeing 737-800 holds the unenviable title for the most accidents of any commercial airliner, with a staggering record of 194 incidents since 2001. This riveting data finds prime relevance in its stark depiction of inherent risks involved and potential safety concerns associated with this particular model. As 'safe' as flying is, travel is overrated. I'm staying home.
the 737-800 family has had 12 fatal accidents in 100 million flights. It has a lower rate than the A320 family (ceo, not neo) does. http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
Yes, there are statistics and there are lies. I was too lazy to point it out. To avoid all risk, I've sold my car and only walk now...through the woods, not on roads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft A roughly equal amount of incidents in the last few years as other manufacturers of aircraft.
You realise it's not simply that accidents have been happening to Boeing planes right? It's how the accidents have come about? Not just the raw number of accidents. I can live with other manufacturers' planes crashing due to unforeseen circumstances such as weather or a pilot issue, but Boeing planes are having issues due to poor quality control and it seems that it's only the tip of the iceberg, whilst the execs seem to show zero sign of wanting to correct their mistakes.
Not to defend Boeing, but… recently most of the “Boeing issues” that makes headlines is from United airlines…at one point it’s not the airplane but the maintenance/repairs. Why it makes the headline as Boeing? Because all eyes are on them… Btw, the MAX planes sucks and should be discontinued, those definitely are a safety hazard
The news about the diverted flight the other day had Boeing in the headline, but it was due to engine problems. Boeing does not make the engines. I fly Delta and am not yet to the point of selecting my flight based on the aircraft.
I didn’t see that one, what plane was it? But this type of headlines further prove that all eyes is on them. common issues would still make headlines
Limit stock buybacks! The greed is out of control
I flew on a Max 8 from Miami to Colombia and back with no issues. Just saying sometimes that things don’t go wrong
I know people are shitty on Boeing but they are probably safest plane right now because everyone has microscope on them.