Boeing 737 Max Aircraft - Would You Fly On One?

Posts
209
Likes
1,204
We are all probably 100x more likely to die on our drive to work tomorrow than if we fly on a 737max tomorrow.

The negligence of Boeing and Alaska is serious and will be addressed. But we need to keep this in perspective.
 
Posts
7,613
Likes
26,350
We are all probably 100x more likely to die on our drive to work tomorrow than if we fly on a 737max tomorrow.

The negligence of Boeing and Alaska is serious and will be addressed. But we need to keep this in perspective.

I'd suggest that informed perspective should include these testimonials [bold emphases mine]:

I would absolutely not fly a Max airplane,” said Ed Pierson, a former Boeing senior manager. “I’ve worked in the factory where they were built, and I saw the pressure employees were under to rush the planes out the door. I tried to get them to shut down before the first crash.”

I would tell my family to avoid the Max. I would tell everyone, really,” said Joe Jacobsen, a former engineer at Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...g-max-9-flying-again-after-door-panel-blowout
 
Posts
8,895
Likes
45,652
I'd suggest that informed perspective should include these testimonials [bold emphases mine]:

I would absolutely not fly a Max airplane,” said Ed Pierson, a former Boeing senior manager. “I’ve worked in the factory where they were built, and I saw the pressure employees were under to rush the planes out the door. I tried to get them to shut down before the first crash.”

I would tell my family to avoid the Max. I would tell everyone, really,” said Joe Jacobsen, a former engineer at Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...g-max-9-flying-again-after-door-panel-blowout
Well, that’s encouraging. 😲
 
Posts
11,038
Likes
19,416
Does the notion that travel by plane is safer than by car relate to miles travelled and not number of trips?
I.e. if you travel 1000 miles you’re safer in a plane as average miles per trip is much higher. However, if you take 1000 flights compared to 1000 car jounreys, car travel is safer.
 
Posts
1,034
Likes
2,000
Does the notion that travel by plane is safer than by car relate to miles travelled and not number of trips?
I.e. if you travel 1000 miles you’re safer in a plane as average miles per trip is much higher. However, if you take 1000 flights compared to 1000 car jounreys, car travel is safer.

Isn't it always said your trip to the airport in a car os statistically more dangerous than the flight is? That seems to suggest, if accurate, that air travel is simply statistically safer independent of miles traveled or how many events. Clearly, however, if you fly 300 times a year and only ride in a car five times in the same year, you individually are more likely to be involved in a flight accident than a car accident as there is always a crossover in statistics.
 
Posts
745
Likes
6,436
Does the notion that travel by plane is safer than by car relate to miles travelled and not number of trips?
I.e. if you travel 1000 miles you’re safer in a plane as average miles per trip is much higher. However, if you take 1000 flights compared to 1000 car jounreys, car travel is safer.

Pretty sure it's both distance traveled and number of trips. Wikipedia has a list of accidents involving commercial flights. There's basically one accident per year on commercial flights out of the millions of flights each year. There are probably more auto accidents and fatalities in a single day in one major US city.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...ving_commercial_aircraft_in_the_United_States
 
Posts
7,613
Likes
26,350
No doubt that it is statistically safer to fly commercial airliners than to drive. But isn't the salient point that as the MAX has continued, well-documented problems, it would be safer to fly on other models?

Why choose a problematic, and less safe airplane over safer alternatives?
 
Posts
1,034
Likes
2,000
No doubt that it is statistically safer to fly commercial airliners than to drive. But isn't the salient point that as the MAX has continued, well-documented problems, it would be safer to fly on other models?

Why choose a problematic, and less safe airplane over safer alternatives?

There isn't enough data for me to make that conclusion. From a numbers standpoint, the 747 and 737-800 are far more deadly. This is due to the 747 having been flown for probably tens of thousands of combined flight hours due to its lengthy service life and the 737-800 being used by many airlines. The accident rate between these three aircraft are different, though, and that is for sure.

Any of the 737 MAX variants may become one of the safest Boeing products ever. At what cost, however, I can't hazard a guess. All I know is that I've read nothing that compels me to ensure that the very rare flight I need to take is serviced by equipment other than a 737 MAX.
 
Posts
1,045
Likes
5,700
No doubt that it is statistically safer to fly commercial airliners than to drive. But isn't the salient point that as the MAX has continued, well-documented problems, it would be safer to fly on other models?

Why choose a problematic, and less safe airplane over safer alternatives?
There are an average of 1000 deaths per year in commercial air transport worldwide. Apparently there are more people killed by lightning every year than die in plane crashes. The number of incidents has increased but that is due to there being more aircraft flying today than any other time in history.

To your point on choosing a problematic aircraft. It all comes down to availability of new and used narrow body aircraft (737/A320) in the market place.

As of today the supply of any used narrow body aircraft is practically non existent and those that are available are priced well above fair market and subject to bidding wars due to scarcity. Normally Airbus and Boeing can deliver fifty new B737/A320 per month each and have back orders for five years and more. Covid slowed and halted production for almost 18 months so we are short about one thousand new commercial aircraft today. Adding even more pressure was the decision of airlines to off load older and leased aircraft during the pandemic to raise money when not flying and reduce outgoing lease payments. These aircraft were purchased by spare parts suppliers, new start up airlines and even operators using old equipment to upgrade their even older equipment.

Post covid we all started flying again and are back to about 95% of 2019 passenger numbers with 2024 expected to be the year records are broken. The issue is the supply of aircraft to grow is non existent so parking the Max and firing up an older model is not on the cards. Airlines who operate the Max have already sold tickets up to Christmas 2024 and don't have the spare lift to compensate for grounded or unreliable aircraft. The best solution for the current situation is to reactivate the door as an emergency exit.

The real reason people are rightly concerned is the lack of transparency from Boeing corporate. Confidence has been lost in the company management as much as the products they produce.
 
Posts
8,895
Likes
45,652
There is no doubt that commercial air travel is statistically safer than any other mode of transportation. What grabs the public’s attention, however, is that airline crashes tend to be catastrophic when they do happen and they receive intensive coverage from the media. People die in car crashes every day, but when a vertical stabilizer detaches from a commercial airliner which then crashes into a Queens neighborhood killing all 265 people on board, as happened with American Airlines flight 587, that’s big news and makes some people nervous about air travel. Lack of control is very conducive to fear.
Edited:
 
Posts
1,009
Likes
6,041
I hang around with a few pilots, most retired now. All are military trained and did left-seat, commercial, 747, big boy stuff. Here’s something from an email that was going around between them.


REPUTATION CHECK: We seem far from the days of “If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going.”

The aerospace giant, once a standard-bearer for American technology and innovation, finds itself in yet another crisis, just five years after the last one. In that case, two 737 MAX 8 crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people, sparked multiple probes, the ouster of Boeing’s CEO, and legislation from Congress.

The immediate threat posed by bolts on Boeing’s 737 MAX 9 line appears to be passing, now that the FAA has issued instructions to fix them — but the reputational damage it has caused is spreading. Congress is readying hearings, the FAA has stepped up oversight and is temporarily limiting one of Boeing’s production lines, and airline customers are starting to balk.

Boeing’s latest fall from grace has led to questions like: Just what is wrong at Boeing? Can any of their planes be trusted? Why are we back here — again? (It’s worth noting that some aspects of the legislative and regulatory response to the MAX 8 disasters in 2018 and 2019 are still being put into place as of this year.)

Those likely won’t yield comfortable answers. And now the manufacturer faces another period under the microscope as regulators begin looking into what appears to be extensive quality control issues that still exist across the company’s assembly lines, amid suggestions that Boeing has put quality behind profit.

Of course, Boeing is still a blue chip American company and it spreads its political contributions far and wide. In the 2022 campaign cycle, Boeing Co. logged over $4 million in contributions, and spent more than $13.4 million on lobbying, according to OpenSecrets. And, beyond political contributions, Boeing is a significant employer in several states, with the jobs and economic benefits that brings.

So is Boeing too big to fail?

Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory, said that Boeing doesn’t really fit that script, and that its executives rather appear to be “simply intent on destroying their competitive position.” Boeing isn’t dead in the water, yet. But Aboulafia said arresting its fall will require the board moving to eject people at the top “who appear to be trying to drive the company into the ground.”

Boeing still has “a lot of good people, a lot of good products, a lot of good technologies. [But] unless the board intervenes, you'll just see a continued downward path,” he said.

“The company marches from crisis to crisis, from loss to loss. Spiraling downward is not status quo — but on the other hand, yeah, [for Boeing it’s becoming] status quo.”
 
Posts
1,934
Likes
3,399
Isn't it always said your trip to the airport in a car os statistically more dangerous than the flight is? That seems to suggest, if accurate, that air travel is simply statistically safer independent of miles traveled or how many events. Clearly, however, if you fly 300 times a year and only ride in a car five times in the same year, you individually are more likely to be involved in a flight accident than a car accident as there is always a crossover in statistics.
There are 3 kinds of lies…….there are lies, damned lies and statistics!
The problem with statistics is that the results can be skewed by not just the question asked but how it is asked and how you choose to interpret the results.
An unethical skilled statistician can be selective of what data is ignored, what data is used and how it is used to come up with the desired outcome.
 
Posts
1,434
Likes
1,884
One of the best Boeing plane , remains only one worldwide looks like since today
 
Posts
11,038
Likes
19,416
Pretty sure it's both distance traveled and number of trips. Wikipedia has a list of accidents involving commercial flights. There's basically one accident per year on commercial flights out of the millions of flights each year. There are probably more auto accidents and fatalities in a single day in one major US city.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...ving_commercial_aircraft_in_the_United_States

Understood but that’s just in the US and as @Pastorbottle points out, it depends on the stats used and the bias in them. I’ll try and find a reference but I’m sure globally the deaths per passenger trip for planes is approximately equal to or great than per car trip. Obviously this in itself is slightly biased as a plane journey carries many more people and travels much further than the average car trip.
 
Posts
5,338
Likes
9,102
Why choose a problematic, and less safe airplane over safer alternatives?
Why choose a BMW over a Volvo? Why choose o ride a motorcycle instead of driving a car? Rarely is top safety the reason people choose to take/ use what they choose.
 
Posts
1,034
Likes
2,000
https://simpleflying.com/how-safe-is-flying/

". . . odds of being in an accident during a flight is one in 1.2 million, and the chance of that being fatal is one in 11 million."

". . . your chances of dying in a car crash are over 200,000 times higher, averaging around one in 5,000."

https://airadvisor.com/en/blog/how-safe-is-flying

". . . out of . . . 32.2 million flights in 2022, only 5 resulted in fatal accidents which involved the loss of a total of 158 lives . . ."

Stark numbers. How could the numbers be cherry-picked, massaged, or made up to change these statements? I'd guess there are many, many, more car trips, though. There's more cars, right?

I hear of car accidents with one or more deaths about two times a week on my scanner. That's not even an area as large as region I live in; it's just in my locality, radio range.
 
Posts
1,934
Likes
3,399
I do agree that there is a much higher probability of being involved in a car crash than a plane crash, but the statistical comparison is flawed…… it’s like trying to compare chalk with cheese.
Most people only fly a occasionally, whereas they would travel by car more than once a day, thereby their exposure to the likelihood of exposure to a car crash is significantly higher, compound that with the number or cars getting about and the fact that most of the drivers are dickheads with no idea as to what they’re doing.
Now if you were to fill the air with aircraft to match the number of cars on the roads and have most of those aircraft with dickheads that have no idea of the task at hand in control, the bloody things would be raining outta the sky from arsehole to breakfast!