Do you trust Boeing with your life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consciously do not fly United or the Max anymore, but other than that, no issues for me.

Cool, so you never ride in a car either, right? Also never swim?

I worked in safety at the NTSB after a short stint as an airline pilot, but keep acting like you know everything.

How are you mitigating the 1000x higher risk of death from participating in those activities, versus flying on a Boeing airplane?

You're kidding, right? I need to drive. I don't need to fly on a specific aircraft or specific airline.

Not really- I sometimes go weeks without getting in a car. We all make choices and implicit risk calculations. You have accepted the relatively large underlying risk of car accidents as part of your life, likely because of where you live- which is totally understandable in America. But you are trying to reduce a much much smaller level of risk by controlling for type of airplane or manufacturer or airline. Of course you probably don't "have to" ever get on an airplane, but you choose to because it's faster and easier.

We all take these trade-offs all the time- usually it's more risk for less money. I have sometimes driven to New York instead of taking the train, because it was much cheaper for last minute trip. I knew my personal safety risk was much higher for driving, and accepted that, for better or worse, because of the lower cost.

I just think it's funny to be parsing out risk for things with billion to one odds, when you have much higher risk activities you undertake on an almost daily basis, that you could radically reduce your risk much more by cutting back/down.

I have a masters degree in risk management, thanks. But I also spent 10 years looking at the (sorry for the TMI, but literally bloody) results of flights gone wrong. I lower my driving risk by not driving drunk or fatigued, and I lower my aviation risk by not flying certain aircraft. I don't fly v-tail Bonanzas as a pilot because of their poor climb-out characteristics, either - are you going to criticize me for that?

That's great because if those 10 years were between 2009-2024, not a single one of those bloody results would have been on commercial flights in the US (other than a single person on that Southwest plane in 2018 where the engine failed).

If you avoid United/Boeing and that leads you to taking a flight with a connection instead of a nonstop, I'll bet you are multiplying your risk by 10x by adding another set of takeoff/landing. Let me know if I got the numbers right on that.

I assume you mean FAR 121 flights, because yes, some were, in fact, "commercial flights." And no, I do not use connections unless necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consciously do not fly United or the Max anymore, but other than that, no issues for me.

Cool, so you never ride in a car either, right? Also never swim?

I worked in safety at the NTSB after a short stint as an airline pilot, but keep acting like you know everything.

How are you mitigating the 1000x higher risk of death from participating in those activities, versus flying on a Boeing airplane?

You're kidding, right? I need to drive. I don't need to fly on a specific aircraft or specific airline.

Not really- I sometimes go weeks without getting in a car. We all make choices and implicit risk calculations. You have accepted the relatively large underlying risk of car accidents as part of your life, likely because of where you live- which is totally understandable in America. But you are trying to reduce a much much smaller level of risk by controlling for type of airplane or manufacturer or airline. Of course you probably don't "have to" ever get on an airplane, but you choose to because it's faster and easier.

We all take these trade-offs all the time- usually it's more risk for less money. I have sometimes driven to New York instead of taking the train, because it was much cheaper for last minute trip. I knew my personal safety risk was much higher for driving, and accepted that, for better or worse, because of the lower cost.

I just think it's funny to be parsing out risk for things with billion to one odds, when you have much higher risk activities you undertake on an almost daily basis, that you could radically reduce your risk much more by cutting back/down.

I have a masters degree in risk management, thanks. But I also spent 10 years looking at the (sorry for the TMI, but literally bloody) results of flights gone wrong. I lower my driving risk by not driving drunk or fatigued, and I lower my aviation risk by not flying certain aircraft. I don't fly v-tail Bonanzas as a pilot because of their poor climb-out characteristics, either - are you going to criticize me for that?

That's great because if those 10 years were between 2009-2024, not a single one of those bloody results would have been on commercial flights in the US (other than a single person on that Southwest plane in 2018 where the engine failed).

If you avoid United/Boeing and that leads you to taking a flight with a connection instead of a nonstop, I'll bet you are multiplying your risk by 10x by adding another set of takeoff/landing. Let me know if I got the numbers right on that.

I assume you mean FAR 121 flights, because yes, some were, in fact, "commercial flights." And no, I do not use connections unless necessary.

Yes, "commercial flights" as 99% of people would understand that term. Sorry I didn't parse out the difference between 135 and 121 for a general audience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you have a flight booked - expensive, whole family, summer, Eurioe. What would you do? Cancel? Or still take the flight? It’s not refundable…

^^ it’s the 777-300ER

Well it either crashes or it doesn't, I think that means it's a 50/50 chance. Up to you if you like those odds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consciously do not fly United or the Max anymore, but other than that, no issues for me.

Cool, so you never ride in a car either, right? Also never swim?

I worked in safety at the NTSB after a short stint as an airline pilot, but keep acting like you know everything.

How are you mitigating the 1000x higher risk of death from participating in those activities, versus flying on a Boeing airplane?

You're kidding, right? I need to drive. I don't need to fly on a specific aircraft or specific airline.

Not really- I sometimes go weeks without getting in a car. We all make choices and implicit risk calculations. You have accepted the relatively large underlying risk of car accidents as part of your life, likely because of where you live- which is totally understandable in America. But you are trying to reduce a much much smaller level of risk by controlling for type of airplane or manufacturer or airline. Of course you probably don't "have to" ever get on an airplane, but you choose to because it's faster and easier.

We all take these trade-offs all the time- usually it's more risk for less money. I have sometimes driven to New York instead of taking the train, because it was much cheaper for last minute trip. I knew my personal safety risk was much higher for driving, and accepted that, for better or worse, because of the lower cost.

I just think it's funny to be parsing out risk for things with billion to one odds, when you have much higher risk activities you undertake on an almost daily basis, that you could radically reduce your risk much more by cutting back/down.

I have a masters degree in risk management, thanks. But I also spent 10 years looking at the (sorry for the TMI, but literally bloody) results of flights gone wrong. I lower my driving risk by not driving drunk or fatigued, and I lower my aviation risk by not flying certain aircraft. I don't fly v-tail Bonanzas as a pilot because of their poor climb-out characteristics, either - are you going to criticize me for that?

That's great because if those 10 years were between 2009-2024, not a single one of those bloody results would have been on commercial flights in the US (other than a single person on that Southwest plane in 2018 where the engine failed).

If you avoid United/Boeing and that leads you to taking a flight with a connection instead of a nonstop, I'll bet you are multiplying your risk by 10x by adding another set of takeoff/landing. Let me know if I got the numbers right on that.

I assume you mean FAR 121 flights, because yes, some were, in fact, "commercial flights." And no, I do not use connections unless necessary.

Yes, "commercial flights" as 99% of people would understand that term. Sorry I didn't parse out the difference between 135 and 121 for a general audience.

I'm clearly not the general audience, but ok. And sorry, I'm not going to switch to United just because some stranger is butthurt about recent events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consciously do not fly United or the Max anymore, but other than that, no issues for me.

Cool, so you never ride in a car either, right? Also never swim?

I worked in safety at the NTSB after a short stint as an airline pilot, but keep acting like you know everything.

How are you mitigating the 1000x higher risk of death from participating in those activities, versus flying on a Boeing airplane?

You're kidding, right? I need to drive. I don't need to fly on a specific aircraft or specific airline.

Not really- I sometimes go weeks without getting in a car. We all make choices and implicit risk calculations. You have accepted the relatively large underlying risk of car accidents as part of your life, likely because of where you live- which is totally understandable in America. But you are trying to reduce a much much smaller level of risk by controlling for type of airplane or manufacturer or airline. Of course you probably don't "have to" ever get on an airplane, but you choose to because it's faster and easier.

We all take these trade-offs all the time- usually it's more risk for less money. I have sometimes driven to New York instead of taking the train, because it was much cheaper for last minute trip. I knew my personal safety risk was much higher for driving, and accepted that, for better or worse, because of the lower cost.

I just think it's funny to be parsing out risk for things with billion to one odds, when you have much higher risk activities you undertake on an almost daily basis, that you could radically reduce your risk much more by cutting back/down.

I have a masters degree in risk management, thanks. But I also spent 10 years looking at the (sorry for the TMI, but literally bloody) results of flights gone wrong. I lower my driving risk by not driving drunk or fatigued, and I lower my aviation risk by not flying certain aircraft. I don't fly v-tail Bonanzas as a pilot because of their poor climb-out characteristics, either - are you going to criticize me for that?

That's great because if those 10 years were between 2009-2024, not a single one of those bloody results would have been on commercial flights in the US (other than a single person on that Southwest plane in 2018 where the engine failed).

If you avoid United/Boeing and that leads you to taking a flight with a connection instead of a nonstop, I'll bet you are multiplying your risk by 10x by adding another set of takeoff/landing. Let me know if I got the numbers right on that.

I assume you mean FAR 121 flights, because yes, some were, in fact, "commercial flights." And no, I do not use connections unless necessary.

Well that's my point- if flying from the DC area, United is the only nonstop option to a number of destinations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m consciously not flying United now, due to this and their stated DEI hiring policy for pilots and all crews including maintenance.

Other than that, no changes in flight plans.

Sorry the world is too woke for you, snowflake. Glad you’ve created a safe space for yourself from the big, bad anti-racist folks out there. I know it’s hard.

It’s actually not hard at all. United announces new “standards” in pilot hiring. I don’t fly them anymore. What could be simpler?

Hardly. All candidates must still meet the FAA mandated minimums and pass all of the same tests, regardless or race or gender.

Meeting minimum standards and passing a test doesn't mean that you're the most qualified candidate.

Yes it literally does. There are multiple checkrides and exams that have to be passed plus have 1500 hours. Flying is not easy. If you’ve made it all the way to that level, you’re qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hell to the no.
I just changed my flights for a work trip so I don’t have to travel on the Max.

I took a flight in the Max a week ago, and it made a weird noise near my seat in Row 18.
I did not feel comfy about that. No more United Airlines for me, nor Alaska Airlines either.

Boeing planes are fine, just don't fly the new ones. The older ones have been checked and checked and checked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m consciously not flying United now, due to this and their stated DEI hiring policy for pilots and all crews including maintenance.

Other than that, no changes in flight plans.

Sorry the world is too woke for you, snowflake. Glad you’ve created a safe space for yourself from the big, bad anti-racist folks out there. I know it’s hard.

It’s actually not hard at all. United announces new “standards” in pilot hiring. I don’t fly them anymore. What could be simpler?

Hardly. All candidates must still meet the FAA mandated minimums and pass all of the same tests, regardless or race or gender.

Meeting minimum standards and passing a test doesn't mean that you're the most qualified candidate.

Yes it literally does. There are multiple checkrides and exams that have to be passed plus have 1500 hours. Flying is not easy. If you’ve made it all the way to that level, you’re qualified.

I am also pretty sure that anyone who meets those qualifications is getting hired now, because there is a shortage. And to the horrors of that PP, some of them are black. It's hard out there for a racist.

[Anonymous]

Of course I do. Whatever will be, will be. However I hope many people cancel so that the tickets are cheaper! Oh the Covid days

[Anonymous]

Perfect display of anxieties here

[Anonymous]

Firstly - any issue with an engine has nothing to do with Boeing - they don’t make engines. Planes having some kind of issue is also common, and planes declare an emergency and return to their point of origin at least once a day. There are websites that track all this stuff. Once I started following the YouTube channels that relate all these incidents I became a much better flier. I realized that things that seem scary to me are actually par for the course, and 99.9% of the time the ultimate outcome of this small percentage of flights is “the plane landed safely and taxied to the gate”. United is going to have a lot of incidents because the have a lot of planes.

[Anonymous]

Tesla seems worse to me. Plane problems get a lot more press yet there are fewer of them and fewer people killed overall.

That said, I don’t want to fly on a Max.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m consciously not flying United now, due to this and their stated DEI hiring policy for pilots and all crews including maintenance.

Other than that, no changes in flight plans.

Sorry the world is too woke for you, snowflake. Glad you’ve created a safe space for yourself from the big, bad anti-racist folks out there. I know it’s hard.

It’s actually not hard at all. United announces new “standards” in pilot hiring. I don’t fly them anymore. What could be simpler?

Hardly. All candidates must still meet the FAA mandated minimums and pass all of the same tests, regardless or race or gender.

Meeting minimum standards and passing a test doesn't mean that you're the most qualified candidate.

Yes it literally does. There are multiple checkrides and exams that have to be passed plus have 1500 hours. Flying is not easy. If you’ve made it all the way to that level, you’re qualified.

Not true at all. Some pilots are obviously more skilled and more experienced than others. Social justice commentary on the internet might be your thing, but aviation certainly isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m consciously not flying United now, due to this and their stated DEI hiring policy for pilots and all crews including maintenance.

Other than that, no changes in flight plans.

Sorry the world is too woke for you, snowflake. Glad you’ve created a safe space for yourself from the big, bad anti-racist folks out there. I know it’s hard.

It’s actually not hard at all. United announces new “standards” in pilot hiring. I don’t fly them anymore. What could be simpler?

Hardly. All candidates must still meet the FAA mandated minimums and pass all of the same tests, regardless or race or gender.

Meeting minimum standards and passing a test doesn't mean that you're the most qualified candidate.

Yes it literally does. There are multiple checkrides and exams that have to be passed plus have 1500 hours. Flying is not easy. If you’ve made it all the way to that level, you’re qualified.

I am also pretty sure that anyone who meets those qualifications is getting hired now, because there is a shortage. And to the horrors of that PP, some of them are black. It's hard out there for a racist.

Someone advocating for racial preferences in hiring is calling someone else a racist LMAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m consciously not flying United now, due to this and their stated DEI hiring policy for pilots and all crews including maintenance.

Other than that, no changes in flight plans.

Sorry the world is too woke for you, snowflake. Glad you’ve created a safe space for yourself from the big, bad anti-racist folks out there. I know it’s hard.

It’s actually not hard at all. United announces new “standards” in pilot hiring. I don’t fly them anymore. What could be simpler?

Hardly. All candidates must still meet the FAA mandated minimums and pass all of the same tests, regardless or race or gender.

Meeting minimum standards and passing a test doesn't mean that you're the most qualified candidate.

Yes it literally does. There are multiple checkrides and exams that have to be passed plus have 1500 hours. Flying is not easy. If you’ve made it all the way to that level, you’re qualified.

Not true at all. Some pilots are obviously more skilled and more experienced than others. Social justice commentary on the internet might be your thing, but aviation certainly isn't.

This exactly. I know pilots who've skated through with multiple checkride failures (i.e., the same checkride multiple times) and though airlines will pull your entire FAA file and see this, they're desperate for warm bodies at this point and might not always care. PP is insane if he thinks every ATP is qualified.