'If it's Boeing, I'm not going': travelers nervous to fly after plane issues(wfla.com)
wfla.com
'If it's Boeing, I'm not going': travelers nervous to fly after plane issues
https://www.wfla.com/news/national/if-its-boeing-im-not-going-some-travelers-nervous-to-fly-after-recent-plane-issues/
20 comments
I have no further info on this, but I remember reading some Boeing employees saying they would never fly on a 787, for similar reason of bad design/quality control.
Wayback Machine archive link (source is geofenced): https://web.archive.org/web/20240402033023/https://www.wfla....
My wife and I were planning a trip recently and when she was booking the flights we almost passed on one because it was a going to be a Boeing. In this case though it was a 737-800 which allegedly has a good safety record: 0.06 fatal crashes per million flights.
[deleted]
And yet they'll get into a car and drive around at a substantially higher risk.
And if you look, many of the problems reported to be Boeing problems are planes operated by United that have been in service for a while.
And if you look, many of the problems reported to be Boeing problems are planes operated by United that have been in service for a while.
This is true in a statistical sense. The reason why people do this is when getting on a plane you have a total lack of control of your surroundings. You are not allowed to inspect the maintenance records you are not allowed to determine the qualifications of the pilots you are not allowed to do a whole host of other things that are supposed to be taken care of by the processes in place. So when those processes break down it makes people apprehensive. Because we were told trust the processes but we're shown that we can't trust the processes. It really doesn't matter that the statistical likelihood is extremely small compared to alternative forms of transportation.
When I get in my car I personally am in control of a large amount of the risk that I take. I have decided the maintenance of my vehicle when I get on the road I can be vigilant about those around me and choose to take actions to minimize my risk. Now that being said a large number of people get behind the wheel of their car and they take no steps to minimize their risk. Even when they see something ahead that seems risky they take no action to avoid it until the last possible moment when it is often too late. Still even in those circumstances they are in control of that risk and it's easier for people to accept that.
When I get in my car I personally am in control of a large amount of the risk that I take. I have decided the maintenance of my vehicle when I get on the road I can be vigilant about those around me and choose to take actions to minimize my risk. Now that being said a large number of people get behind the wheel of their car and they take no steps to minimize their risk. Even when they see something ahead that seems risky they take no action to avoid it until the last possible moment when it is often too late. Still even in those circumstances they are in control of that risk and it's easier for people to accept that.
It's also the case that overall traffic fatalities are skewed to include people with old, poorly maintained, unsafe cars, as well as intoxication, exhaustion, etc. You can personally lower your risk, as you've pointed out, or at least come to an understanding of your risk. Hell you can just drive more slowly, so that even if you get into an accident, it isn't a fatality.
I'm sorry. We need to hold Boeing's feet to the fire with regards to their gross incompetence - not apologize for them. I'd go so far to argue that their incompetence may be criminal, and the company's officers should be investigated for malfeasance.
The comment was about people's reactions to the risk and putting the risk into perspective, not these allegations of wrongdoing, which are a separate matter.
Should Boeing be held responsible for United Airlines actions (or lack thereof), too?
Should Boeing be held responsible for United Airlines actions (or lack thereof), too?
Alaska != United. Ditto for the two aircraft that went down due to their faulty MCAS equipment, both weren't United aircraft. So not sure why you're bringing United or indeed an airline into this discussion when it's clear Boeing is the one with the QC issues, and not their airline customers.
Exactly. Boeing's problems go far beyond United Airlines. I suspect tomohawk is somehow affiliated with Boeing.
Car factories recall millions of cars sometimes. If Boeing were to recall the planes instead of paying the CEO $62M, my assessment of Boeing and my reaction would be different. Yours?
Boeing "recalls" aircraft all the time. That's what it means when the FAA grounds an aircraft type. Any problems will be identified, and then fixed, either by Boeing or the carriers.
No. When the FAA grounds something, the FAA acts and gains trust. Not Boeing.
My interpretation of the door affair is that Boeing played for time and eventually $62M changed hands. (Edit: well, and the previous whistleblower suffered a most unfortunate accident.)
My interpretation of the door affair is that Boeing played for time and eventually $62M changed hands. (Edit: well, and the previous whistleblower suffered a most unfortunate accident.)
Geo locked (at least in the UK): https://archive.ph/b4ngV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Accident... The Boeing 787 has been involved in seven accidents and incidents as of November 2023, with zero fatalities and no hull losses.
versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Accidents_and_i... Way too much to list...