I don’t think it makes sense for passengers to worry about the plane model. I haven’t done the math but conceptually it’s like being paranoid about taking plane A that has a 99.99998 safety vs plane B that has a 99.99999 safety.
For the crew, things are a little different given that they are all day long, all year long in the same plane model, so those minuscule risks compound.
People are bad at conceptualising low probabilities. That’s why they play lottery!
Of course it makes sense to avoid the 737 MAX. Both at an individual and at a population level.
Someone has to win the lottery and it could be you. The fact that the probability isn't high doesn't matter when you're dying because Boeing wanted to make an extra dollar.
It also makes sense at the population level. It's clear that Congress and the FAA are not capable of overseeing Boeing. And they're too big to even stumble now, never mind fail. The solution is for consumers to punish them. That will get them to fix their problems ASAP.
This whole hubbub is hilarious to me.
People are so bad at statistics.
You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies. 30,000+ people die every year in car crashes in the US but that’s totally fine. (Of course I am well aware of various car company safety scandals where profit was placed above safety).
With US airline travel you have to go back multiple years before you find a single flight-related death on a mainstream commercial jet.
Meanwhile everyone I know seems to refuse public transit to the airport because of the “crackheads” and “homeless people” even though their car is way more dangerous than those supposed threats. I have to beg people I travel with to stop assuming that a taxi is going to be a better experience than a train or even a bus.
The fact that most Americans are against abolishing the 2nd amendment is also another piece of statistical ignorance. It’s such a no-brainer win on public safety but everyone is drunk on their revolutionary war propaganda from when guns didn’t even have the modern concept of bullets. You’re wildly more statistically likely to be shot by a police officer in the US than to be shot by an actual criminal in the UK because that’s how dumb enshrining the rights of killing appliances into a constitution is.
I’m all for the customer’s power to boycott, but the actual solution that will save lives is for the government and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough.
For a plane type filter I’d personally use it more for comfort or perhaps CO2 emissions preferences and not safety.
For a piece criticizing people for being dumb you get a lot mixed up.
Car companies don’t certify their own safety, they have to send them in to the government to be crash tested. Car deaths don’t happen (much) because of mechanical failures, they happen because of crashes. They don’t self-certify their crashworthiness.
Most people don’t live somewhere where there’s a subway to the airport in the USA. You can count on one hand (and probably have multiple fingers left over) the number of cities where you have that option. For most people a bus adds significant time to their trip. I can take a 30 minute Uber whenever I want or a God-only-knows-how-long bus ride. Even if it weren’t for the mentally ill (but mostly harmless) passengers, a taxi is in every way a better experience than a bus, and still negligible risk, it just costs more.
Even if we could abolish the second amendment that still leaves over 300 million guns here, and this may surprise you but people also sell things illegally. The problem isn’t the law, it’s that people want guns.
There wouldn’t be 300 million guns in citizens’ hands without the law existing in the first place. That’s why the law is dumb.
Laws can be changed. There’s no obligation to double down on them. We don’t keep lead pipes legal just because it’s very costly and time-intensive to replace all of them. That’s only an argument to start sooner rather than later. Guns would be a cakewalk to take off the streets compared to lead pipes. For one thing, guns need a consumable to function at all (ammunition).
Yes, car makers self-certify. You are not correct about that. Government crash tests aren’t a prerequisite to being allowed to sell a vehicle.
Example source:
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-ne...
You can also ask ChatGPT if you want.
And then here we go with the carbrain argument “the only option is cars, America is set up for cars.” That was and continues to be an intentional choice. It is not irreversible. It is not something that we are forced to double down on just because that’s been our choice so far. Every time a road is built or a highway is widened that’s an intentional choice that is no less intentional or costly than sending the money toward transit options or pedestrian/cycling infrastructure.
The Netherlands had this exact same problem in the 70s and reversed it. Something like 90% of daily trips are under 5 miles, which is less than 30 minutes on a bike. The Netherlands has zero cities that are as populous as the top 10 most populous American cities.
“The bus adds significant time” but that’s the thing that people say who never take the bus. Can you work on your laptop while you drive? Can you read while you drive? I can do that on the bus. Sounds like I get time back, and my ride is statistically 10x safer.
Also, when it comes to large urban areas, you have to remember that most people live in them. That’s why they’re large urban areas. A New Yorker who never drives anywhere isn't someone who “doesn’t count” because they live in New York and it’s an anomaly. More of America depends on public transit than you think.
When the second amendment was written, guns were primitive and not much of a problem. Law and order was less institutionalized. People were afraid of being occupied by a foreign government because they recently had been. I agree that if they knew what we know now, they probably would have worded it better. But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going?
The article you posted said that 97% of the cars on the road are crash tested by the government. I think my statement on that is substantially accurate.
In America, most large urban areas do not have extensive trains. I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. There may be some I’m missing, and even in those cities, they don’t cover the entire area. Probably at least 75% of the country can’t walk from their home to a train and take it to the airport.
America’s infrastructure is entirely beyond my ability to control. I can take a one hour bus ride and read I am sure but I’ve got stuff to do with my day, so I’ll take the 30 minute Uber with no nutjobs yelling at thin air.
I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. You can bike just fine around our densely populated areas, though our poor bike lane design makes it far more dangerous than driving. The Netherlands has a small population but they live much closer together which is what matters for public transport cost. It would cost an order of magnitude more here to provide the same level of service, so we don’t. Maybe we should but when I need to get to the airport that’s not really on my mind.
DC has the most convenient airport for transit access; if you park, you literally have to work through the train station to get to the airport. Atlanta has a mediocre train system, but it has excellent access to the airport. Philadelphia has a mediocre connection to the airport, but stronger system overall. SFO also is reasonably accessible by BART.
Indeed, the only US city I can think of with a large urban rail system with an abysmal airport connection is LA, although LA's rail transit network in general is just a smorgasbord of sadness.
Yeah, that's because there's large expanses of land in Alaska or the West where literally nobody lives. But most people live in urban environments of some kind; the fifty largest MSAs account for over half the population (too lazy to do the math to get the exact number), and even the fiftieth largest is of a size that would, in Europe, have a functional transit system of some kind.
Perhaps fair counting DC. SFO does have it, I’m not sure even half of the people going to/from the airport have access to BART/Caltrain but I am ok counting it too. NYC, Boston. Anything else?
Go down the list of the biggest cities (all of which I’ve spent time in and commuted to an airport except DC) and ask if the average person can walk to a station and get to it and it’s like 90% NFW.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_ci...
A lot more Americans live in a city that looks like Houston than NY.
(Though I have a place in Phoenix and the tram system is getting better by the year and it is quite possible they’ll change categories.)
Philly has a very good airport line - I figure most of the Eastern Coast will? Less sprawl here.
City population isn't the right metric to use; you want to use metro population, i.e., MSAs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area).
Most of the cities in the US don't have a functional mass transit system, but there is no population density reason they couldn't.
even NYC is a stretch in terms of airport access. There is no one-seat ride to any airport unless you live along the route of the LGA bus, which makes it very unpleasant to schlep a 45lb checked luggage to the airport
People aren't (physically) addicted to guns. If only there were data from other countries...
Few people are demanding public transport spanning entire sparsely populated states.
There are enough cities in the US with comparable population densities to e.g. Amsterdam.
Just for the record, the 2nd amendment is not a 'law' - it is a right guaranteed by the constitution.
while it is a simple process to change a law - rights guaranteed by the constitution necessarily and by design, have a much higher bar that must be crossed in order to change - and there is currently not even close to enough people in favor in enough states to revoke the 2nd amendment.
Yes you’re right, it’s not technically a law.
I’m the odd duck in thinking that almost any country would easily find 3/4 of its state/provincial legislature votes needed to approve a repeal of an amendment similar to the 2nd amendment. I am more than baffled by the logic behind keeping it around.
Even the most progressive segments of the US aren’t generally in favor of getting rid of it entirely.
The list of countries with similarly permissive gun laws is basically one-hand’s worth, and none of them are G20 countries. Basically the United States is in the company of Yemen and almost nobody else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation
(Check out the “comparison” section with the maps)
Anyway, sorry, this is horribly off-topic.
Yeah but the laws enforce the limits. A tank is an 'arm' as is a bazooka, but you can't buy either of those with operable weapon systems.
And anyway, to your original points, air travel got a lot safer in the last 40 years because of government intervention. Same with cars, perhaps even more dramatically. That’s why the hubbub now. The government intervention was decreased and the safety seems to have gone down. (This is true of both the mechanical and operational aspects, see all the articles about increasing runway incursions and near collisions.)
Correlation != causation, but one doesn’t have to be ignorant of statistics to suspect the system failure is at least in part due to letting corporations self-certify.
We don’t want the regulators to wait until there’s another crash to do something about it.
Safety stats are lagging indicators.
I think it is naive and dangerous to simply blame profit motive for the problems at Boeing, Profit has always been goal at Boeing, and I assume is also a goal of Airbus and every other manufacturer.
So if something has changed recently maybe one should look at other corporate priorities that have in reality supplanted profit as the number one goal for many corporations.
In fact Maybe a return to profit motive is what we need to resolve the problems
So, you could certainly argue that the Max is a result of a fixation on _short-term_ profit; it was arguably an attempt to push an existing design maybe a bit too far, rather than taking the short-term hit and designing a modern competitive plane in the size category. The trouble with that is, the payoff period is longer, so if the decision makers are overly fixated on “number goes up”, well.
I doubt the door bolts issue has anything to do with the type rating hack they did.
That is literally twice as dangerous.
Actually... 737 MAX is roughly 30 times as dangerous as the other planes in its category (eg. A320).
Source: https://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
Every MAX flying now has had updates made to address the two events captured in those statistics, so those stats capture something different than today’s reality.
They're all being put together by Spirit Aerosystems which is a company that makes zero gross profit and has interest rate payments which are half of its gross revenue on top of that, which was spun off out of Boeing in order to aggressively cut costs and bust unions and fluff up Boeing's stock price.
That hasn't changed at all.
Spirit Aerosystems also does work for Airbus.
"Our business depends largely on sales of components for a single aircraft program, the B737 MAX"
-- Spirit Aerosystems 2022 10-K filing
They do 3 times as much business with Boeing than Airbus.
(Airbus may also wrap Spirit in their own Q/A process to mitigate the issues, which Boeing is certainly lacking)
Different purchasers can have different expectations of quality and pay the company differently;-)
If you apply this reasoning to the MAX statistics, then you have to apply it to the statistics of all the other planes, too, which also received various changes and updates during their service lives improving their safety and you are back to square one, that is MAX is much less safe than other planes
It is definitely fair to apply that to other planes. e.g the DC10
That's the problem with the reputation and the perception of safety. If you lose it then even if you finally fix the underlying issues people will still have a hard time believing you.
The point is that you will still not win the lottery if you buy two tickets.
I love this analogy, thanks!
It’s because of that type of sentiment that Boeing has been doing what they have been doing.
Until one day you close the bedroom door 5% harder than usual and the whole house collapses.
Why do you think we should surrender the tiny amount of agency that we still have, in the face of corporate profit-driven deterioration?
For me, this isn't about a measured risk in relation to other known risks in my life (crossing the road, cycling, drinking alcohol). It's about removing a totally unnecessary risk caused by greed and corporate heedlessness.
A similar case: I stopped eating British Beef when a British minister fed his daughter a beefburger[0] to 'prove' it was "totally safe", during the 'Mad Cow Disease' (BSE) crisis in 1990. I wasn't significantly worried about contracting BSE at the time, but the lengths and efforts that the government went to, to convince people to eat more beef for 'patriotic' reasons, when the farmers had fed their cows on ground-up carcasses for economic gain, meant that my boycott was a small but meaningful expression of my own agency when faced by this sort of appalling behavior.
I feel the same way about Boeing, and about the greed of airlines (like RyanAir), that think only about profit and see passenger safety as an irritating distraction that is only important in terms of 'brand perception'.
[0] https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/bse-crisis-john-se...
You may choose to not fly on a boeing plane for political reasons. But if you are concerned about risk, it’s not about comparing the risk of a flight in Max vs riding a bicycle. It’s about a flight in Max vs say, an A320.
What I am saying is that those respective risks are so tiny that they are immaterial, and not worth worrying about. If you want to spend energy making your trip safer, you should worry much more about what car model will drive you to or from the airport, or level of crime in public transports, etc.
These are not political reasons. I'm for many years now trying to avoid flying on the 737 MAX and 787. Not because I dislike the planes even as a passenger, or because I worry about crashing, or because I have a political agenda. I want to use the little bit of voting with the wallet I have. This is the core of how our system works.
I understand that in the grand scheme of things this is not really doing anything, but if a sufficient number of people make airlines uncomfortable they will increase the pressure on Boeing to improve their processes.
The current duopoly/monopoly on aircraft manufacturers is preventing innovation in the space and I do not appreciate this a single bit.
Technically, voting with your wallet is a political statement, which you are sending to Boeing management and shareholders to make the world a tiny bit less profit-at-all-cost-driven.
It is interesting that people automatically equate "political" with party or country politics, which gives it a bad rep. When in fact it is a healthy thing if more people were to think and act like you and stand for their principles on issues however minor-sounding.
This must be why corporations are people in the US. Voting with your wallet is an economic statement, not a political one. It can be done for any reason, let alone an ideological one. Not letting your kid go bungee jumping because you feel it unsafe is not a political statement.
Flying on a Boeing plane is incredibly safe, millions of people do it incident free every year.
Bungee jumping is actually a great comparison, because it’s also an incredibly safe activity, with only two dozen or so people dying in this century.
To put it in comparable terms, and based on random Googling, bungee jumping is approx 2 micromorts, compared to swimming, which is 12, and flying, which is 2.1 per 30,000 miles flown.
No it's not. It's a statement, yes. Not a political one necessarily.
I stopped buying El Monterrey frozen burritos last year. They removed some of the beef and replaced it with filler rice. I did not appreciate that cost-cutting, so I stopped giving them my money. It's not a political stance that I have here, it's an economic one. I don't like shrinkflation so I don't reward it.
I will refuse to buy any GM car because they made a decision to juice their subscription revenue. This has nothing to do with my political stance. It's an economic decision.
And so with the Boeing planes. They're obviously cutting corners in their safety department. The result is still a mode of travel that's really safe, but the way we got to that level of safety is by not cutting corners. I may decline to reward a company that has decided to trade a little of that hard-won safety margin for some better financial numbers.
I hear this sentiment a lot. And logically, it is true. But maybe it's my cynic nature, but isn't this like counting on a natural disaster level of impossible? This is something which can happen but has happened in history very few times (I personally can't think of any instances, but there has to be some company ruined by a boycott). I am not saying you are wrong, but I find this a naive view.
Edit: Let me clarify a bit. I am not saying companies have not taken feedback through what sells and doesn't sell, that of course happens. But I don't know of many instances where individuals spontaneously or otherwise caused a company to change their internal structures and processes. The implication that consumers have a knob to finetune a company process is what I disagree with.
I understand your reasoning and completely agree with it, but I suggest that if you feel strongly about this that you put some effort into actual politics, because in my opinion the only way that issues like these are solved is by regulation and giving teeth to agencies charged with it. Unfortunately our consumer dollars are insignificant to a company like Boeing supplying a very high-value market that is incredibly inelastic and 'too-big-to-fail', so the only way to dis-incentivize evil behavior is by punishing them for doing it.
If you don’t like the free market you can go live in … well. Maybe err. Well, you should like the free market.
I don't think they're as small as you're saying. There have been multiple well documented incidents with 737 MAX that have not been with the A320. Maybe you think it's small enough to not worry about, said incidents are enough for me to want to avoid that aircraft entirely. Absolute risk is certainly still low, but I'll take the safer in comparative risk any day there.
Paying attention to planes and risks of other forms of transport are not mutually exclusive.
If people want to exercise choice - by all means, and I’m happy at the margin to punish Boeing, but I agree from a personal risk standpoint it’s probably inconsequential.
I’m always amazed at where people spend energy mitigating risk, I had a coworker who was worried about taking the Covid vaccine but was hardly the picture of health and rode a motorcycle to work many days - it’s like putting down the beer, eating a salad, and taking the bus will give you massive gains in life expectancy vs some minor unknown delta with the Covid vaccine, but to each their own. I just wish we could get people to use micromorts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort)
I think if you zoom out you’ll realise that none of us actually know much about risk of things we’re doing.
Like there’s a hundred ways changing your diet could harm you rather than help even if you think you’re reducing your risk.
I don’t disagree, but I'm also not talking about debating a Mediterranean diet vs keto, I’m talking about cutting out fast food and big gulps…
my favorite was watching people - riding a bike in traffic without a helmet - but wearing a mask (even when not required by law).
Talk about not understanding risk.
Speaking of which - the probabilities are exactly the same for passengers as cabin crew and there is no compounding effect :p
Number of times you roll the dicey has no effect on probabilities and thus no impact on whether make sense.
I’m not doing this often this can swallow more risk is very human thinking
If two people perform an action with 1/10,000 chance of death, but person A performs it once per year and person B performs it 10,000 times per year, whose life is more heavily dependent on the underlying fatality rate of the action?
See also - vending machines kill more people than sharks do.
Only if you want to meaure the number of times you die on average. But you typically want to measure the risk of dying once over a career as a crew, and that is very much a function of how many times you roll the dice. Your probability of survival is 1-(prob of no crash per flight)^(flight count), and it is not linear. Whereas a passenger plays the game many less times.
If you don't take my made up numbers but wikipedia [1], and if I get my math right, B737 max has 4 accidents per millions flights, vs 0.2 for previous B737. That means that over a career of 15 years, working 200 days per year, 3 flights a day, a crew has a chance of dying of 3.54% with the Max vs 0.18% for the older models. 0.18% might be non material but 3.54% starts to be significant. (a passenger that takes 10 B737 max flights a year over that period only has a 0.06% probability to die).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Accidents_and_i...
I agree that people are bad with probability like you explain
However, I think the issue with the 737 MAX is that it's been involved in several high profile catastrophic mistakes while only being in service for a few years. It's expected that a page in service for 20 years might have wear and tear that leads to issues... But brand new planes crashing back to back shortly after being released..
The stats on the Wikipedia page state that the MAX has 4 fatalities per 1 million flights, while the prior generation has 0.2 fatalities per million flights [1]. Of course, some if this is due to the two crashes right out the door, and if excluded, perhaps they are similar... But then this new door blowout issue occured... And after investigation multiple planes had the same issue (so it likely is a production issue, not an individual worker screwing up one time).
Overall I agree plane model should mean little to travelers... But the MAX is trying very hard to prove it's a lemon.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX
A 20-year old plane is probably safer than one fresh off the assembly line, given how long they are usually in service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
Not to defend Boeing since the circumstances of the MCAS controversy didn’t involve honest well-intentioned design mistakes, but I would argue that reliability is a bathtub curve so a new plane model having more issues is expected.
I’m sure it’s to exclude the MAX but I like it so I can find specific planes I want to fly. The old narrow/wide body filter wasn’t granular enough.
Agreed. I fly between the UK and US a few times a year, and if I could filter by expected plane type for comfort on an 11 hour flight, I would.
I don't do a hard filter up-front, but for longer flights, I'll definitely look at plane type and seating availability before I book if there are reasonable options (for comfort reasons).
It's the only tool or mechanism available to regular consumers by which they can vote with their wallets. If you're unhappy with how Boeing has been handling their business in recent years, this is the most amount of influence a regular person can exert. Even if your individual risk is miniscule, it serves as a tool to signal discontent.
They can vote with their vote too. If regulators do their job, grounded airplanes start to become quite a large expense for airlines and influence their fleet choices.
Indeed. But, don’t forget you can vote with your political vote - or even better - with civic participation: this is the most effective way to make change happen.
Not only that but the crew is much more informed and qualified to make a decision and it's their life on the line as well.
There will always be incidents no matter how rare, investigations will always show that the something could have been done better because nothing can be done perfect, the press will always inflame the public and the public will want to have an opinion/decision no matter how out uninformed.
Your "plane A" number is off by an order of magnitude. The "plane B" number is about right.
Now you will certainly find it interesting to look at the safety profile of your other activities. And estimate repeating those risks through your life. That order of magnitude makes all the difference in the world.
I don't care as much about the immediate risks as I care about punishing Boeing for their management culture -- and I don't care about the model as much as the Airbus/Boeing tilt of the carrier I'm booking with.
This does mean that this utility isn't really that useful, though, and its simpler to just book with e.g. Delta over Alaska.
I think being unreasonably pissed about certain things is good because it provides some randomness/wildcard behavior for those who enjoy modeling the masses behavior for profit, and think making mistakes is only about the numbers. Some things should have a high cost just because.
An alternative use case: on a long flight I would prefer to fly on a 787 or A350 as these composite aircraft maintain higher cabin humidity and pressure which is easier on the body.
I think about plane models when it comes to comfort. I always prefer A350s over 787s, always prefer A320s over the 737 family because of the 737 family's more narrow cabin. I genuinely don't like flying on Boeing planes.