Boeing has been under increased scrutiny in recent weeks, and for good reason. The company’s reputation is at an all-time low, after we’ve repeatedly learned how the aircraft manufacturer has prioritized short term profits over safety.
As a result, we’ve also seen increased media coverage of any incidents involving Boeing aircraft. With tens of thousands of commercial aircraft in service around the world, minor (non-fatal) incidents happen every single day. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way. Yet in recent weeks, whenever an incident involves a Boeing aircraft, it gets more attention, even if it has nothing to do with Boeing’s recent shortcomings.
Along those lines, a recently published story in The Cut that’s entitled “If It’s Boeing, I’m Not Going,” really exemplifies the paranoia that some have, exposing just how bad they are at risk analysis.
In this post:
Wait, people are really avoiding all Boeing planes?
I’ve seen a lot of people on social media claim that they’re not going to fly on Boeing aircraft, or whatever, but I think a recently published story really sums up how irrationally some people are thinking.
The story talks about how 737 anxiety is “turning us all into amateur aeronautics experts,” and that “checking whether your spouse’s plane is a Boeing is the new love language.” The story interviews several people, who have some questionable thought processes.
For example, the story quotes someone who is planning a summer vacation in Vancouver, but when he saw the flight would be operated by a 737 MAX, he instead decided to book a ticket out of Seattle and drive there, so he could fly on an Airbus jet:
Yes, said my friend Josh, who actively avoided booking a Boeing for a family trip this summer. “I was looking for flights back from Vancouver to New York, and I saw that it said Max 8 on Kayak, and I said, I’m not going to fly that,” he told me. “I actually chose a flight out of Seattle. So we’re driving three hours from Vancouver to Seattle,” he said. I clarified: “You’re driving three hours so you can avoid a Boeing?” “Yeah.” Then he’s boarding a JetBlue flight and flying home on an Airbus.
Then there’s the example of a Spirit flight on an Airbus jet (the story initially referred to this as a “Boeing Airbus” — so much for everyone becoming “amateur aeronautics experts”), which… had a mechanical issue on the ground that was professionally dealt with? But oh my gosh, maybe they almost died, so they bought extra legroom seats, so that “if we are really going down today, we will do it in style.” Per the story:
Michelle Borress, a mom of two, emailed me from the runway at Newark Airport, where her family’s 9 a.m. Spirit flight to Phoenix, aboard an Airbus, had been twice delayed because of mechanical issues. It was now 1:30 p.m. With no sign of imminent takeoff, she cracked and booked her family on a later United flight aboard a Boeing 737. She told me she had been anxious about flying Boeing. “But what’s fascinating to me is that in rebooking, I didn’t think for a second about Boeing, but rather just wanted to get away from Spirit,” she wrote. As her 8-year-old twin boys melted down next to her, she gave me permission to quote her posthumously and instructions on where her dog, Rosie, should be rehomed. At 3:19 p.m. she sent an update: Their plane had been grounded, they were reclaiming their luggage, and would indeed be flying on that Boeing. “I upgraded us all to more legroom, because if we are really going down today, we will do it in style,” she wrote. (They made it. And Rosie is fine.)
Or you have these people, who think that they’re looking out for their families and avoiding all risks by not flying Boeing aircraft:
I noticed that sometimes people mentioned their children as a factor in their flight anxiety. “After news reports on all the Boeing issues, we decided to cancel our Alaska flight and rebook with a different airline,” Alexandra Cavoulacos told me, noting that she and her husband would be traveling together without their two young daughters. “It wasn’t worth the risk of something happening.” My friend Hayley said that she’s started looking more closely at the position of her seat when she books. On her last flight, she said, she “didn’t want to be close to the emergency door.”
Avoiding Boeing aircraft defies logic
I’m not a Boeing apologist. Like most other people, I’ve lost so much respect for the company, as it’s clear that Boeing has progressively been losing its way over the years. I’m happy to see increased government oversight at the company, and a shakeup to the management team.
All that being said, avoiding Boeing aircraft makes zero sense, both statistically and logically:
- Forgetting the 737 MAX for a moment, the 737 NG, 787, and 777, are among the safest planes in the sky; the 737 NG and 777 have been flying for decades, while the 787 hasn’t had a single hull loss
- While Boeing sucks, I’d feel perfectly comfortable getting on a 737 MAX; the 737 MAX 8 MCAS problem has been resolved, while 737 MAX 9 door plugs have all been closely inspected
Look, I’d totally get wanting to avoid a Boeing 737 MAX several years back, when two of them crashed. That’s not totally irrational, and there’s also a reason that regulators grounded the planes at the time. But it’s a bit different now.
The logic that people seem to have in avoiding Boeing aircraft is “oh, I don’t want to take any risks.” Everything we do in life involves some inherent risk, and Airbus aircraft have also had some issues over the years (though I’m totally on team Airbus over team Boeing, but more from a comfort perspective than anything else).
But perhaps what most exposes the irrational logic here is someone claiming that they’re going to be driving three hours from Vancouver to Seattle in order to avoid flying on a Boeing jet. In the United States, over 40,000 people per year die in car accidents. In the typical year, zero people in the United States die in commercial aircraft accidents. And yes, that includes on Boeing jets.
Now, before I wrap up, let me make two points:
- More power to you if you want to avoid Boeing jets in order to punish the company and encourage airlines to stop ordering these planes; that’s a principled but difficult stance to take, and it’s totally fair, though that’s not a claim anyone is making here
- It’s totally fair to admit that one has an irrational fear of certain aircraft based on media coverage, and that one would simply not feel comfortable on that plane for those reasons; but there’s a difference between acknowledging that and claiming that one is actually at material risk in such a situation
Bottom line
Two things can both be true — Boeing can be a huge disappointment, while you still shouldn’t avoid flying Boeing aircraft in the name of safety. People seem to be under the impression that the increased media reporting of Boeing incidents suggests that planes never previously had minor issues. No, they just weren’t reported on such a wide scale.
But in particular, if you think you’re looking out for your family or avoiding risk by driving an extra three hours rather than getting on a Boeing plane, well… you might want to focus on learning more about risk analysis than studying aircraft types.
Where do you stand on some people seemingly avoiding Boeing jets?
I’m one of the people quoted in that piece and if you can’t appreciate that my comments were tongue in cheek, then maybe you need your head examined. I didn’t actually think I was going to die! Lordy…
You are entitled to your opinion, wrong as it may be.
Bormeing has proven that their maintenance and safety standards are subpar even in the face of increased scrutiny from the 737 max fiasco. You say the issues are “addressed”.
How on earth do you know what other problems have yet to surface and what aspect of Boeing’s management to date gives you the confidence to say that this is not the case?
Boeing...
You are entitled to your opinion, wrong as it may be.
Bormeing has proven that their maintenance and safety standards are subpar even in the face of increased scrutiny from the 737 max fiasco. You say the issues are “addressed”.
How on earth do you know what other problems have yet to surface and what aspect of Boeing’s management to date gives you the confidence to say that this is not the case?
Boeing deserves to go bust. Consumers are well within their right to avoid the products of a company that has demonstrated such wilful indifference to the lives of their customers.
Aussie,
There are more Boeing Aircraft flying daily throughout the World than any other manufacturer in aviation history. Boeing also has the best safety history of any other manufacturer.
You are entitled to your opinion, as well. Your opinion would carry more credibility if you had a grasp of the facts.
Just like consumers have rights to avoid them, they also have rights to not avoid them. Although I don't see myself stepping on a 737 MAX 9, I'll happily fly on other Boeing planes. Would you apply the same and not fly on JAL or ANA if they literally have a steal deal but it's operated by a 787? I don't see that happening, not only you but everyone else saying that "if it's Boeing,...
Just like consumers have rights to avoid them, they also have rights to not avoid them. Although I don't see myself stepping on a 737 MAX 9, I'll happily fly on other Boeing planes. Would you apply the same and not fly on JAL or ANA if they literally have a steal deal but it's operated by a 787? I don't see that happening, not only you but everyone else saying that "if it's Boeing, I ain't going!" No you won't.
Btw, I hope that you're aware that recent United incidents are very likely because of their poor maintenance, not Boeing's whatever fault.
Seriously, you do you.
That a 787 hasn’t suffered a catastrophic loss yes is not testament to that airframe. There’s overwhelming evidence of corner cutting in all phases and stages of the 787 program. Maybe it will prove as safe as the 777, but I wouldn’t be too excited to bet my life on it.
There is almost no chance I’d fly a MAX unless I had to be somewhere and there was no alternative....
Seriously, you do you.
That a 787 hasn’t suffered a catastrophic loss yes is not testament to that airframe. There’s overwhelming evidence of corner cutting in all phases and stages of the 787 program. Maybe it will prove as safe as the 777, but I wouldn’t be too excited to bet my life on it.
There is almost no chance I’d fly a MAX unless I had to be somewhere and there was no alternative. Again, you do you. There’s evidence those planes are airworthy, but no evidence they are built well. I’m sure you would’ve enjoyed the DeHaviland back in the day with its fancy new windows, too.
Mark,
Some people are logic-oriented, some are emotion-oriented.
Let me guess what type you are.
I see a lot of comments containing "sorry" here. I wonder are they actually feeling sorry about what are they yapping about?
Yes, it's a kind of "no sh*t Sherlock" comment, but I've never seen this amount of people saying it at one place like they all agreed on it.
No.
The implied connotation is "Sorry [that you feel that way, but I'm about to disagree with you]...."
Recent shortcoming? You should watch the B-Max episode on the recent John Oliver Show.
If PBS has to bring out a second season on Boeing atrocities and crisis, you know something is wrong!
So, I completely disagree with you, if it's Boeing, I am not Going!
These latest incidents on Max is the best advertisement for Airbus.
It John Oliver,
Where I go for all my fact-based, unbiased information.
Boeing engineers are avoiding their own planes too
Do you have a source for that claim, Andrea?
Avoid also 787! It is also a disaster! Sorry, I will avoid Boeing. Just changed my flight to Airbus for my trip to Europe. No excuses for this criminal company. They need to be punished.
Avoiding the 737 MAX is entirely rational. The old form factor, close to the ground air-frame is entirely unsuitable for modern day high diameter engines. They should have designed a new air-frame, but compromised because the A320 was eating their dinner. A definite case of profit before safety.
The same people avoiding Boeing are the ones who believed every drop of nonsense from the media and Fauci types during the pandemic. Zero risk in life is impossible. Some level of risk to your life begins the moment you get out of bed.
You may as well have thrown Bigfoot, ChemTrails, and "The Illuminati!" into it as well... for all anything about Fauci has to do with the topic at hand.
Some of us are steering ourselves away from Boeing aircraft, and it has nothing to do with fear.
I am not terrified the plane I'm flying on will disintegrate in the air.
What I am concerned about is the fact Boeing is apparently no longer capable of delivering a quality product. They are now GM circa 1980 (that's not where you want to be as a business, though the twits running the operation don't seem...
Some of us are steering ourselves away from Boeing aircraft, and it has nothing to do with fear.
I am not terrified the plane I'm flying on will disintegrate in the air.
What I am concerned about is the fact Boeing is apparently no longer capable of delivering a quality product. They are now GM circa 1980 (that's not where you want to be as a business, though the twits running the operation don't seem to realize that, as they swap one MBA for another in the corner offices).
As a consumer, I have the choice of deciding who I give my money to. If i find a company odious, I will not buy their product or service. However, as a passenger, I don't have that direct connection with Boeing. All I can do is opt to fly on Airbus aircraft whenever possible, to cast my own little vote against what Boeing has been pushing out of late.
My own vote, in my purchasing patterns, is meaningless. Nobody will notice it. My hope is enough people will join me to skew traffic patterns enough that the airlines themselves (Boeing's direct customers) see a bona-fide preference for Airbus-operated flights. Only then can real change be forced (and not just swapping one bean-counter for another, and calling it change).
One manufacturer seems to take pride in build quality. Another seems to take pride in shoving product out the door as fast as possible. Please join me in trying to reward the company delivering quality. Fly Airbus, whenever possible.
Modern airplanes are so safe (and with so many redundancies) that any design faults are not likely to cause issues immediately. It’s only when a few things go wrong at the same time, that things end catastrophically. For that reason, MAXs certainly can have other issues that are not readily apparently. I am certainly avoiding them (but not all Boeing aircrafts).
ONLY Boeing planes I will fly are anything built up through 1994! Anything built after that date is suspect at best! Bring back the 737-200, 737-300 from the boneyard and I'll board one all day long!
You forgot the 737 rudder issue?
I "avoid" boeing only because Airbus has the cooler planes i.e. a220, a350, and a380. Dreamliner is bleh. 747 is cool, but harder to find.
A220 isn't Airbus thus a better bird Bombardier C 300 or 100.
A3xx used to plow a lot of ground in the 80's until they fixed fly-by-wire. But in India before internet so you didn't hear about all the "pilot error".
Max flew thousands of flights safely before and after losing 2 birds. Note age, experience, and airlines involved. Note failure of single (cheap option) of failed angle -of-attack indicator supposedly repaired before fatal flight.
...A220 isn't Airbus thus a better bird Bombardier C 300 or 100.
A3xx used to plow a lot of ground in the 80's until they fixed fly-by-wire. But in India before internet so you didn't hear about all the "pilot error".
Max flew thousands of flights safely before and after losing 2 birds. Note age, experience, and airlines involved. Note failure of single (cheap option) of failed angle -of-attack indicator supposedly repaired before fatal flight.
Note American press loves to attack anything to sell newspapers while European press is rational.
Fly Airbus if you want.
But hysterical nonsense like driving YVR SEA is ridiculous.
There's an argument to be made that, if enough people avoid Boeing aircraft, it will punish the company by making airlines cancel orders and move them to Airbus; yes it will have the side effect of affecting the airlines, and yes there's not enough capacity to produce enough Airbus planes to cover the demand, but it WILL punish Boeing for their behavior if enough people avoid them for enough time, so it's not fair to say it's irrational
You actually mention the fundamental problem. It will punish the company. What does this mean? If it will make a difference, people who didn't cause the problem will get laid off. Meanwhile the people who are the root cause of the problem don't get punished personally. The "worst" that will happen to them is that they have to walk away from the company. Usually with a huge severance package.
Somewhat luckily, whilst not an in-air 'flying' incident, I take issue with your statement Ben, that "- while the 787 hasn’t had a single hull loss."
Are we forgetting the London-based, Ethiopian B787 spontaneous battery combustion? IINM, that was a hull loss.
It's conceptually impossible for that to be a hull loss, when the aircraft (ET-AOP) was returned to service and is still flying today.
So now Boeing is responsible for lithium battery construction and installation? That problem is long gone.
I shouldn't mention currently the Tesla fires that are quite spectacular. Some apartments don't allow parking EV's inside. Now Ebikes, not scooters.
Boeing is lucky there is only one other company that makes planes. If they actually had competition in the industry with 4 or 5 more companies, Boeing would be screwed and probably would be going bk. Having said all this, they have several years of backlog of planes to be manufactured. Taking a contrarian view since the stock has been beaten down so much this year I am thinking of buying 10 grand worth as...
Boeing is lucky there is only one other company that makes planes. If they actually had competition in the industry with 4 or 5 more companies, Boeing would be screwed and probably would be going bk. Having said all this, they have several years of backlog of planes to be manufactured. Taking a contrarian view since the stock has been beaten down so much this year I am thinking of buying 10 grand worth as it should be due for nice bump as they name new ceo and earnings continue
So according to your Logic back in the 70s, you would be absolutely fine driving in the backseat of a Ford Pinto going 90 miles an hour while being tailgated? Good luck to you.
It's really simple psychology. Sitting on an airplane, you have no autonomy of the situation. That's why people fear these things.
Yes, driving and other forms of transport have much higher chances of accidents. But it's the feeling people have: "I can control my destiny based on my actions."
Regardless, Boeing has had a PR disaster and you can play defense for them all you want. There is something very wrong going on with the...
It's really simple psychology. Sitting on an airplane, you have no autonomy of the situation. That's why people fear these things.
Yes, driving and other forms of transport have much higher chances of accidents. But it's the feeling people have: "I can control my destiny based on my actions."
Regardless, Boeing has had a PR disaster and you can play defense for them all you want. There is something very wrong going on with the inner workings at that company, otherwise we would not be in this situation
I understand the logical approach to the issue. But it is personal that one cares for the lives of their loved ones or themselves. I fly at least twice a month both domestic and international and I know how safe flight operations both from an aircraft and an airline standpoint. Yet, I feel a little uncomfortable these days flying a new Boeing aircraft. The key is NEW. Given the shoddy quality control, any new Boeing...
I understand the logical approach to the issue. But it is personal that one cares for the lives of their loved ones or themselves. I fly at least twice a month both domestic and international and I know how safe flight operations both from an aircraft and an airline standpoint. Yet, I feel a little uncomfortable these days flying a new Boeing aircraft. The key is NEW. Given the shoddy quality control, any new Boeing plan could very well be the next disaster waiting to happen unfortunately. A 1999 B777, sure not a problem. A 2023 B787, not sure.
Finally, the government agencies have taken note of the situation thankfully. But I don't see this improve soon. It is an endemic problem of every publicly listed hyper capitalist organization. Execs are paid by stock, and everything points to profit at any cost. Most firms get away with minor damages to people or society (Meta!). But in case of Boeing unfortunately people die and go through severe trauma. The govt. will not regulate anything because it is controlled by lobbies that are paid for by the companies, including Boeing.
So, yes. It is illogical to avoid Boeing aircrafts. So brace for more things going down...
Avoiding Boeing altogether is irrational, avoiding all MAX aircraft is VERY rational.
Wow, I hope the family who decided to drive to Seattle "enjoyed" the traffic on I-5! I live in the Seattle area, and I hate that freeway! There are frequent accidents; in fact, Washington State is setting a new record for traffic fatalities. If I could fly everywhere, I would! Flying doesn't scare me; the drive to the airport or home from the airport (and to other places) is what's REALLY scary!
I have always loved fling boing and always will book Boeing!
It is an essential truism of insurance that people VASTLY overestimate their risk of experiencing an exceptionally rare calamity, and underestimate their risk of experiencing relatively common tragedies. I've never been thrilled to be on a MAX for a variety of reasons (tight seats, sloppy design). However, I recognize that I am far more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than I am during a MAX flight.
If I have a choice between Boeing and Airbus, I'd choose the Airbus, but the reality is that (a) most don't look at the plane type when choosing a flight and/or the plane type is hidden away somewhere; (b) most people want to get somewhere by a certain time/date, and there are not so many options, and (c) cost is a huge factor in the decision on which flight to take i.e., would people be...
If I have a choice between Boeing and Airbus, I'd choose the Airbus, but the reality is that (a) most don't look at the plane type when choosing a flight and/or the plane type is hidden away somewhere; (b) most people want to get somewhere by a certain time/date, and there are not so many options, and (c) cost is a huge factor in the decision on which flight to take i.e., would people be willing to pay $10, $20 etc just to catch a plane that isn't a Boeing.
My concern is simply the unknown problems that haven't been identified yet. Without at least a sample of these planes going through end-to-end checks to verify everything else is good (or not), we're reasonably likely to see new problems come up.
You do realize that the B737MAX variants have been flying for several years, and have logged MILLIONS of flight hours.
I definitely avoid the 737-MAX. Call it whatever you wish, but for me, that's peace of mind. Fortunately, neither of my two most common airlines have it, so it doesn't take much effort. I also don't have a car, and am rarely in an Uber as of late, so there's that too.
As a United 1K, I'm not scared at all on flying a MAX or a 787. I am a little scared and mildly disgusted, however, when I have to fly an A320 or A319 with them. Those planes are in sad shape on the inside, and makes me wonder about the TLC they getting under the hood.
Please bear i mind Boing is still fesuturing the 787 with the burning batteries (FAA/EAA approval to fly again was granted only after putting the batteries in a soewhat fireprove box). I have not yet seen a press Release indicating the root cause has been identified&fixed so I presume Boing has been selling burning planes since 2012 for maximum profit.
I grant there has been no more public incident involving burning 87s since 2012....
Please bear i mind Boing is still fesuturing the 787 with the burning batteries (FAA/EAA approval to fly again was granted only after putting the batteries in a soewhat fireprove box). I have not yet seen a press Release indicating the root cause has been identified&fixed so I presume Boing has been selling burning planes since 2012 for maximum profit.
I grant there has been no more public incident involving burning 87s since 2012. Still I wont book a ticket on likely burning 787 for my mothers only son. I suggest you, Dear Readers do likewise!
Question: when's the last time you compared the amount of thermal runway in 787 engines, versus other mainline jet aircraft? Based on what you wrote here, you might be surprised what you see...........
*batteries, not engines
Agreed with Ben. More Boeing stories (and aviation incidents in general) are going viral solely because Boeing has been in the news so much with the increased FAA scrutiny. That doesn't mean maintenance issues are occurring more often, only that they're being noticed and journalists are writing about them. Same thing we saw with Ever Given blocking the Suez and suddenly everybody became maritime supply chain experts for a few weeks (and now again with...
Agreed with Ben. More Boeing stories (and aviation incidents in general) are going viral solely because Boeing has been in the news so much with the increased FAA scrutiny. That doesn't mean maintenance issues are occurring more often, only that they're being noticed and journalists are writing about them. Same thing we saw with Ever Given blocking the Suez and suddenly everybody became maritime supply chain experts for a few weeks (and now again with MV Dali collapsing a bridge).
That being said, while I do think this hyperfocus and worry over Boeing aircraft (or whatever the national issue of the week is) is irrational I won't complain if it leads to increased budgets for the FAA, DOTMARAD, DOT, and NHTSA so that they can actually verify companies are following regs instead of relying on private companies to regulate themselves.
"That doesn't mean maintenance issues are occurring more often, only that they're being noticed"
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they aren't, either. It's entirely possible that a contributory reason for them being noticed more, is (in addition to increased scrutiny) increased occurrence. We just don't know enough yet to draw conclusions on frequency, so I'm not sure why it's being given as a defense or for condemnation, by either side.
except that aviation is built around statistical analysis, not pageviews or clicks.
Aviation is far safer than it has been in the past but no one is or should be content to accept that we are "safe enough" or dismiss anything other than a completely safe operation as "everybody else has had similar issues" or "it's not that big of a deal" - both of which, any many other excuses we heard recently.
Tune out...
except that aviation is built around statistical analysis, not pageviews or clicks.
Aviation is far safer than it has been in the past but no one is or should be content to accept that we are "safe enough" or dismiss anything other than a completely safe operation as "everybody else has had similar issues" or "it's not that big of a deal" - both of which, any many other excuses we heard recently.
Tune out the media and let people who have and analyze safety based on data do their work and don't be surprised if they come up w/ conclusions you don't like (you being collective, not personal)
Avioding Boeing planes without knowing what actually happened is literally an American stupidity at its weakest.
I don't trust 737 MAXs either though.
Is our lack of trust of their entire QA systems.
There is nothing irrational about avoiding Boeing. There are significant problems with their safety culture which lead to deficiencies in training procedures, poorly made planes, etc. not to mention the lack of regulatory oversight (until recently EASA essentially trusted FAA to do its job and didn't do much of its own certification of Boeing planes - same applied vice versa with Airbus).
Of course, driving instead of flying on Boeing doesn't improve your chances....
There is nothing irrational about avoiding Boeing. There are significant problems with their safety culture which lead to deficiencies in training procedures, poorly made planes, etc. not to mention the lack of regulatory oversight (until recently EASA essentially trusted FAA to do its job and didn't do much of its own certification of Boeing planes - same applied vice versa with Airbus).
Of course, driving instead of flying on Boeing doesn't improve your chances. But flying on planes actually certified by EASA rather than self-certified by Boeing and rubber stamped by FAA is not unreasonable. Even if the risk is still fairly low.
"Fairly" low?
How many people have died on a Boeing aircraft in the United States since 2001? The risk is *infinitesimally* low
I don't dispute that it's *howeverwecallit* low, but it's still higher than on planes made by manufacturers with proper safety procedures a d regulatory oversight.
OK so the odds of you dying on a US airline are 0.00005% on a Boeing and 0.00004% on an Airbus. That's going to move your needle? The difference between driving at night and driving during the daytime is far greater but I bet you still do both
Boeing is the hysteria of the year. If you wish to punish Boeing, fine, just say that. But if an auto maker had a serious recall on one current model would you sell the model you have driven for years without a problem? Of course not. Nobody should let anxiety make your life choices. Besides bridge anxiety is the new Boeing if you allow the media drumbeat to rule.
Ever heard of the Audi 5000?
Ah. The car with a brake American feet confused with the accelerator?
@Maryland: Exactly. The image of Audi in the US was harmed for decades because people started to avoid the brand all together, no matter how rational that was in a setting that had nothing to do with Audi specifically, it was simply publicized in a particular Audi.
The major difference in this case is that current Boeing problems, at least partially, have to do with proprietary Boeing tech. We obviously do not know how...
@Maryland: Exactly. The image of Audi in the US was harmed for decades because people started to avoid the brand all together, no matter how rational that was in a setting that had nothing to do with Audi specifically, it was simply publicized in a particular Audi.
The major difference in this case is that current Boeing problems, at least partially, have to do with proprietary Boeing tech. We obviously do not know how well Airbus bolts on their doors.
The parallel being that the harm to the image has been done.
As COVID proved. Most people will give into media fear porn than do the work to get the real facts.
Avoiding the 737 Max is entirely rational, as stuff happens with these aircraft which doesn't happen with other aircraft. If I consider ending my life, I'll roll the dice and fly with one of them. Until then I'll try hard to avoid them.
With the 787 I feel a bit uncomfortable because of the reported serious quality issues in Boeing's Charleston factory. But so far no issues, knock on wood.
With older Boeing aircraft (737 before Max, 777 etc.) I have no issues.
That is not remotely rational. The A320's first passenger flight crashed. How has that been working since?
How many fatalities have there been on a 737 MAX since 2019? People are terrible risk assessors
"People are terrible risk assessors"
No offense, but based on the examples that you gave, you don't exactly seem to be an ace of that trade, yourself.
Huh?
The A320's first passenger flight crashed. But that has little bearing on it being a safe plane to fly right now.
The 737 MAX had two fatal crashes, both in developing countries where pilot training is different. That is not to exonerate Boeing (they deserve no such exoneration) but factors into the risk. Since the reinstatement it has flown over 500,000 flights with no fatalities. Ergo there is infinitesimal risk.
That nobody died in the Alaska incident was pure luck.
And that one Airbus crash you are referring to was 1988. When did the last 737-Max crash again?
Yes, and it was the A320's first passenger flight. New aircraft often have teething problems. A320 crashes on its first flight. DC-10 had legendary issues. 737 MAX has horrible issues with the MCAS. But the idea that you're being logical by avoiding 737 MAXes is silly.
Again, 500,000 flights since the reinstatement and no fatalities. You are more likely to die on a bridge in Baltimore
There has never been a B737MAX crash in the US.
While the MCAS design was problematic, both overseas accidents were recoverable.
Yeahhhh, probably best that you don't patronize anyone else for being "terrible risk assessors...."
Is it patronizing if it's a fact?
People imbue air travel with a false sense of danger that cannot be dispelled no matter how many statistics you cite. But let me try. Forget Boeing vs Airbus. Here are ALL passenger deaths since 2010on US Airlines:
Two. Yes, that's right. Two. Two people! Two, Mr. Concorde, two! Being a Baltimore bridge worker is 300% more fatal!
Did you know 3000 Americans a year die...
Is it patronizing if it's a fact?
People imbue air travel with a false sense of danger that cannot be dispelled no matter how many statistics you cite. But let me try. Forget Boeing vs Airbus. Here are ALL passenger deaths since 2010on US Airlines:
Two. Yes, that's right. Two. Two people! Two, Mr. Concorde, two! Being a Baltimore bridge worker is 300% more fatal!
Did you know 3000 Americans a year die in swimming pools? 20 per year from lightning? 5 per year from snakebites? 250 died last year from railroad crossings. 70 or so die per year from lawnmowers. LAWNMOWERS, CONCORDEBOY!
So yes. If you have serious concern about dying on a US airline, Boeing or Airbus, but you otherwise drive cars, cross streets, swim in pools, use a lawnmower, cross railroad tracks, pet dogs (10-20 per year) or do virtually ANYTHING then you, like many Americans, are a terrible risk assessor! Because being in a US airline is essentially *the safest place you can be.* Beyond your own house. And I mean literally, it's beyond your own house - housefires kill 2000+ a year :D
737max and 787 made in South Carlolina are on my no fly list.
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2024/03/26/passenger-is-excited-to-be-flying-on-an-airbus-airplane-because-arent-they-safer-than-boeing-until-something-fell-off-the-engine-shortly-after-takeoff/
Ben, surprised you didn’t post this. A reporter in SLC was happy to be on a DL Airbus until an engine panel fell off and they returned to SLC.
With this and the wheel that fell off the DL 757 in ATL, is additional FAA scrutiny in their future? Probably not, as long as the media doesn’t amplify it the way they did with UA.
Would be interesting to hear about the...
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2024/03/26/passenger-is-excited-to-be-flying-on-an-airbus-airplane-because-arent-they-safer-than-boeing-until-something-fell-off-the-engine-shortly-after-takeoff/
Ben, surprised you didn’t post this. A reporter in SLC was happy to be on a DL Airbus until an engine panel fell off and they returned to SLC.
With this and the wheel that fell off the DL 757 in ATL, is additional FAA scrutiny in their future? Probably not, as long as the media doesn’t amplify it the way they did with UA.
Would be interesting to hear about the reasoning that does into the extra scrutiny.
Please avoid flying on any Boeing airplane, that will make it easier for me to book a flight on one and leave plenty of open seats.
Same type of people still walking around with a mask on.
If they’re sick with a contagious disease, undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, diagnosed with an immune disorder, or caring for a loved one with any of these conditions, then I commend and thank them for wearing a mask and so I can focus on my other patients.
"Estimates for the statistical value of life are published and used in practice by various government agencies. In Western countries and other liberal democracies, estimates for the value of a statistical life typically range from US$1 million—US$10 million; for example, the United States FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at US$7.5 million in 2020." -- Wikipedia
I value my life at around $100 million, so the death risk of taking a commercial flight...
"Estimates for the statistical value of life are published and used in practice by various government agencies. In Western countries and other liberal democracies, estimates for the value of a statistical life typically range from US$1 million—US$10 million; for example, the United States FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at US$7.5 million in 2020." -- Wikipedia
I value my life at around $100 million, so the death risk of taking a commercial flight costs me about $5. With Boeing's recent news, I probably would put it at $20, but it is still negligible.
I wouldn't call avoiding the 737MAX in favor of other aircraft, irrational at all. Hell, I'd call that smart.
Avoiding it in favor of driving? Completely irrational in a numerical sense; though in terms of mental well-being or moral principle, it might be arguable.
I think that the safety record is solid evidence that overall the planes are safe but there has been a worrying increase in incidents recently - your argument is that it is "irrational" to avoid Boeing planes, and thats a false statement. It is not irrational; it may be an overreaction, but its a rational over reaction if so.
It's also good due diligence if you are going to write about Boeing's woes to...
I think that the safety record is solid evidence that overall the planes are safe but there has been a worrying increase in incidents recently - your argument is that it is "irrational" to avoid Boeing planes, and thats a false statement. It is not irrational; it may be an overreaction, but its a rational over reaction if so.
It's also good due diligence if you are going to write about Boeing's woes to include at least some backstory on how safety engineers were railroaded out of the company. The Prospect has a must-read long article on this -
https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-03-28-suicide-mission-boeing/
and there is a LOT in here to unpack, but its worth highlighting this one excerpt just to address your accusation that fears of flying Boeing are "irrational" -
'A Seattle Times story detailed an internal Boeing document boasting that the incidence of manufacturing defects on the 787 had plunged 20 percent in a single year, which inspectors anonymously attributed to the “bullying environment” in which defects had systematically “stopped being documented” by inspectors. They weren’t fooling customers: Qatar Airways had become so disgusted with the state of the planes it received from Charleston that it refused to accept them, and even inspired the Qatar-owned Al Jazeera to produce a withering documentary called Broken Dreams, in which an employee outfitted with a hidden camera chitchatted with mechanics and inspectors about the planes they were producing. “They hire these people off the street, dude … fucking flipping burgers for a living, making sandwiches at Subway,” one mechanic marveled of his colleagues; another regaled the narrator with tales of co-workers who came to work high on “coke and painkillers and weed” because no one had ever had a urine test. Asked if they would fly the 787 Dreamliner; just five of 15 answered yes, and even the positive responses did Boeing no favors: “I probably would, but I have kind of a death wish, too.”'
I wonder when we'll see the first "Airbus surcharge" on a ticket. That would be the next step especially for the ULCs (and Lufthansa) with all their imaginary surcharges.
Alternatively, add an "extended safety check" surcharge for any airplane that had regular maintenance recently. Might even be higher for Boeing planes because people might find it more worthy there. So many possibilities...
Please avoid Boeing planes.... especially on the routes I fly. Fewer tickets sold, lower prices.
hahaha
Its irrational if you think that you are at any meaningful personal risk. But I do think it is logical in the sense that as a consumer, you just plain don't want to do business with a company that you feel behaves irresponsibly. Regular customers aren't buying a thing from Boeing directly; their ONLY recourse is to avoid those planes.
Personally, I avoid the MAX not because I think I'm at any meaningful risk, but...
Its irrational if you think that you are at any meaningful personal risk. But I do think it is logical in the sense that as a consumer, you just plain don't want to do business with a company that you feel behaves irresponsibly. Regular customers aren't buying a thing from Boeing directly; their ONLY recourse is to avoid those planes.
Personally, I avoid the MAX not because I think I'm at any meaningful risk, but because I don't want airlines to feel this sloppy QC is acceptable in any way shape or form. I want the airlines to utterly slam Boeing's deviation from its historical engineering/safety culture. Aside from directly complaining to airlines I have status/fly with, I don't have any direct recourse to send that message anywhere myself. I suppose I could buy a
I want to specifically *send a market signal* that caring about safety is paramount, and the best way to do that is to refuse to book/fly on the MAX. Although that only ultimately matters if it is measurable on a corporate dashboard somewhere.
The only real question that should be asked of legislators and airlines - Boeing's direct customers - is what took you so long to realize there is a problem at Boeing.
Let's not forget that the 787 and MAX have both been grounded virtually worldwide and delays and production issues have been ongoing for years.
Media and social media magnifies ALL noise. But that is the environment we live in.
The request for...
The only real question that should be asked of legislators and airlines - Boeing's direct customers - is what took you so long to realize there is a problem at Boeing.
Let's not forget that the 787 and MAX have both been grounded virtually worldwide and delays and production issues have been ongoing for years.
Media and social media magnifies ALL noise. But that is the environment we live in.
The request for a meeting with Boeing board members - made before the resignations last week - is a sign that the future of airlines hangs on Boeing getting back on track before even more damage to airlines is done. Some have said it will take decades for Boeing to even think about returning to its former glory.
In the midst of all of this, Mitsubishi is saying they are ready to develop a new generation aircraft and other new generation aircraft are being tested by companies other than Boeing. Boeing could very well lose its position of leadership and innovation in the industry if it hasn't already.
Airlines are running to Airbus as fast as they can. Airbus was built around multi-site manufacturing and engineering contributions from multiple sources - exactly what Boeing has tripped over.
The world needs Boeing to succeed but it will be a weaker company and its name will be tarnished for a generation. Business school case studies will be done on what went wrong and why so few limited their exposure to Boeing even earlier.
Ummm no.
Your conclusions are all wrong.
A generation? haha. You said the same thing about Airbus when the A380 was shutdown.
Silly
Scott Kirby of United said it and I believe on that issue I think he is right.
I don't recall saying that about Airbus. Feel free to post what I said.
The A380 was a huge ego driven project that had more political impact (winning the Middle East customers as major Airbus customers) than economic but the A380 lost billions of dollars for Airbus.
Even as the A380 was failing from an economic standpoint, Airbus...
Scott Kirby of United said it and I believe on that issue I think he is right.
I don't recall saying that about Airbus. Feel free to post what I said.
The A380 was a huge ego driven project that had more political impact (winning the Middle East customers as major Airbus customers) than economic but the A380 lost billions of dollars for Airbus.
Even as the A380 was failing from an economic standpoint, Airbus continued to develop and perfect the all-new A350, enhance the A320 and A330 families, and acquire what is now the A220.
Boeing COULD recover from its issues quickly but they have very different roots than the A380 economic failure.
If it was just a QA/QC issue, I'd say that is easily rectified. But the whole MCAS issue shows that Boeing has taken at least one shortcut in the certification process and not provided proper communication or guidance. Who knows what else was done without us knowing.
There's a ton of people out there that can't accurately make a good decision about risk. Driving 3 hours to avoid a specific aircraft type is the type...
If it was just a QA/QC issue, I'd say that is easily rectified. But the whole MCAS issue shows that Boeing has taken at least one shortcut in the certification process and not provided proper communication or guidance. Who knows what else was done without us knowing.
There's a ton of people out there that can't accurately make a good decision about risk. Driving 3 hours to avoid a specific aircraft type is the type of poor choice that should be made fun of.
However, I will state that in the past I gave preference to certain routes due aircraft type for comfort reasons, I'm now factoring in safety as well. So if my choices are via DFW on a Max or CLT on an Airbus, I will lean towards CLT.
Maybe avoiding the planes is irrational, but Boeing has serious issues to solve. The NY Times report yesterday showed dozens of safety lapses and a culture of cost-cutting and shortcuts to make planes faster.
It's scary it's gotten this bad.
I'd been flying southwest airlines for a long times, they are using 737's all day long, I love it, people just are going to the extreme. If ain't a Boeing I'm not going. yes united had have some problems in maintenance, you can not blame Boeing for everything.
There are around 100,000 flights daily globally carrying 5-6 million passengers and a vast percentage of them would not have a clue as to the aircraft type.
Too much social media. For some people with soft brains, that is like a cancer.
If it’s Boeing I’m not going. I get my news from Tik Tok.
@D3kingg
"i get my news from Tik Tok"
I've never expected anyone to say that so proudly. That clearly shows how ret*rded you are - that explains a lot about the stupid comments you've maid in past too.
Grow up, and finally realize that you should boycott TikTok who's following CCP and thus supporting their human rights violation, not Boeing.
Clearly you are the soft brain because you don't understand how people would want to boycott a company that puts profit over safety. Nobody thinks that every Boeing is going to fall out of the sky. But go on, show people how superior you think you are while being laughable.
Personally I’d like to avoid the 737 Max jets still because we don’t know what unknowns there are.
I would like to be able to avoid the 787 because while it seems safer in its record already, I don’t know how far the production savings have come. I’m not worried about the 777 at this point.
So yeah I’m not completely on the same page as you, Lucky. Sorry.
The woman who...
Personally I’d like to avoid the 737 Max jets still because we don’t know what unknowns there are.
I would like to be able to avoid the 787 because while it seems safer in its record already, I don’t know how far the production savings have come. I’m not worried about the 777 at this point.
So yeah I’m not completely on the same page as you, Lucky. Sorry.
The woman who booked herself onto the Boeing story did get a chuckle from me. Extra leg room so they could die in style. Lmao.
I'm sorry folks, but "avoiding" Boeing aircraft (and, especially having anxiety over it) is indeed irrational. Very much so. Statistically, Boeing aircraft are safe, just as Airbus aircraft are safe. It's absolutely true that Boeing is a mess these days; a mess created by having Wall Street shills running the company rather than aviation experts. But, while the systematic issues are problematic in an academic and business sense, each individual aircraft is subject to so...
I'm sorry folks, but "avoiding" Boeing aircraft (and, especially having anxiety over it) is indeed irrational. Very much so. Statistically, Boeing aircraft are safe, just as Airbus aircraft are safe. It's absolutely true that Boeing is a mess these days; a mess created by having Wall Street shills running the company rather than aviation experts. But, while the systematic issues are problematic in an academic and business sense, each individual aircraft is subject to so many safety checks and levels of redundancy that there's nothing to worry about. Especially if you're flying on a major international airline. Honestly, I'd be more hesitant to fly a lower rated carrier somewhere in the world no matter what they fly. Even AF gave me the willies after incompetently dropping an A330 into the Atlantic in 2009. But I'd still fly them. Because the odds are with you in all cases.
This entire thing is silly. You're far more likely to die en route to the airport than on any of the aircraft that are departing said airport.
Not irrational if people want to vote with their money against Boeing. And calling that choice fear for their own safety is an even more effective way of casting that vote than just calling it a moral thing.
I agree with Ben that it's more safe than driving, my mind says so but my hearts thinks differently.
I flew recently with united from EWR to TPA on MAX 8, I took the last available extra leg room seat by the window at exit row, I was scared to my wits a whole flight, my seat belt was never as tight as that flight, didn't dare stand up and use the bathroom, I knew...
I agree with Ben that it's more safe than driving, my mind says so but my hearts thinks differently.
I flew recently with united from EWR to TPA on MAX 8, I took the last available extra leg room seat by the window at exit row, I was scared to my wits a whole flight, my seat belt was never as tight as that flight, didn't dare stand up and use the bathroom, I knew it's safe but I couldn't help but fear for my life a whole flight.
I was thinking to myself how stupid am I for doing this, my wife would've killed me if something would've happened to me in that flight for being so reckless.... :)
Covid all over again - although hopefully the irrational paranoia doesn’t spread quite as much this time.
Covid was nothing but a common cold, huh?
For healthy people under the age of 18, yes. And for healthy people under 50, it was as deadly as the flu.
I have asked the airline that I hold preferred stock with (you know which one) to not only cancel all future orders with Boeing but to start finding ways to eliminate any and all ties with Boeing. Looking at the past few months and my risk mitigation strategies when it comes to my diverse portfolio, I feel it is best for the airline to take these necessary measures.
Therefore, as of this morning I have...
I have asked the airline that I hold preferred stock with (you know which one) to not only cancel all future orders with Boeing but to start finding ways to eliminate any and all ties with Boeing. Looking at the past few months and my risk mitigation strategies when it comes to my diverse portfolio, I feel it is best for the airline to take these necessary measures.
Therefore, as of this morning I have e-mailed the CEO, CFO, COO, and all executives and the board of directors to take these actions immediately with a timeframe of six months to at least start plans.
If they chose not to follow through on the forty page letter that I have sent as of today, than I will divest my preferred stock in this great American airline and institution.
And if Boeing ever finds it way again and can prove that they can make sure that they are the best aerospace company that can build a plane, than I will give this airline my golden stamp of approval to do business with Boeing again.
You are a nut.
Well sometimes you feel like a nut sometimes you don't
These imitators are getting to be more obnoxious than the real one.
I mean you know what they say about imitation, its the sincerest form of flattery :)
I agree with you on the rationals used in the story being illogical and uninformed. However, I don’t agree with your argument about no risk in flying MAX due to the scrutiny and fixes applied for MCAS and all MAX 9s being checked for door plugs.
After the MCAS debacle, we all thought, Boeing has things under control and planes flew smoothly until the Alaska Airlines incident. That was a “new”. It has been widely...
I agree with you on the rationals used in the story being illogical and uninformed. However, I don’t agree with your argument about no risk in flying MAX due to the scrutiny and fixes applied for MCAS and all MAX 9s being checked for door plugs.
After the MCAS debacle, we all thought, Boeing has things under control and planes flew smoothly until the Alaska Airlines incident. That was a “new”. It has been widely reported that Boeing’s QA/QC has been poor for couple of decades if not more, so I don’t think it is far fetched to assume, sooner or later we might hear about another previously unknown issue.
As an executive in the industry,, I can say a lot of us are hesitant to fly on MAX aircraft. It’s not at all irrational. (We generally have no issue flying on other Boeing AC, although Charleston NC built 787s are suspect given the massive and pervasive QC problems that FAL has had.)
The Renton whistleblower comments on Leham News (which have been corroborated by news reports and now the NTSB prelim report) point to...
As an executive in the industry,, I can say a lot of us are hesitant to fly on MAX aircraft. It’s not at all irrational. (We generally have no issue flying on other Boeing AC, although Charleston NC built 787s are suspect given the massive and pervasive QC problems that FAL has had.)
The Renton whistleblower comments on Leham News (which have been corroborated by news reports and now the NTSB prelim report) point to systemic problems in process, communication, and IT. Yes, the door plugs on the Max-9 have been checked, but who knows what other QC issues are to cause some type of havoc.
My rule of thumb is to avoid any MAX that’s under 8 years old, which is all of them. This is because the MAX generally flies for 6 years before a heavy maintenance check is performed, where the plane is essentially disassembled and put back together. I add 2 years to the 6 to account for the grounding in 2019-2020, because CAAs may haven given airlines permission to pause the clock when the planes were grounded.
Once a MAX has gone through a heavy check, I’ll trust it from there on out. (I’ll also fly 787s because there is no easy way to tell whether the plane was built in Everette or Charleston before boarding, but I’ll always check when I step on to that aircraft type.)
Out of curiosity how do you tell where a 787 was built when you get on board one of them? I can see myself actually getting off a flight if I find it was a Charleston produced 787 but it would be interesting to know next time I am on one.
Thanks!
For the folks who think it's rational to avoid Boeing, I wish they would bring that same energy about the foods they consume and their health.
The average person takes 3 flights per a year btw.
So true… but that would require discipline
On the other hand, you've met the flying public... the people who in the same sentence will grouse about how they have no legroom and also that they bought the cheapest ticket. Rationality is not a thing they have.
I don’t think it is entirely irrational to consider avoiding Boeing planes. Based on what we all found out recently, it is becoming more clear that Boeing has been failing in their QA/QC of their aircrafts. We certainly hope that Airbus planes, which I believe is really the only realistic competitors/alternatives to Boeing, have been undergoing more rigorous QA/QC.
However it may not be possible to do so easily. Also, I agree with Ben that...
I don’t think it is entirely irrational to consider avoiding Boeing planes. Based on what we all found out recently, it is becoming more clear that Boeing has been failing in their QA/QC of their aircrafts. We certainly hope that Airbus planes, which I believe is really the only realistic competitors/alternatives to Boeing, have been undergoing more rigorous QA/QC.
However it may not be possible to do so easily. Also, I agree with Ben that driving instead of flying on a Boeing aircraft is not a wise move.
I will still fly Boeing planes but over last year there has been multiple incidents on US airlines where recently delivered Boeing planes have had incidents that could be related to manufacturing.
Anyway I am much more hesitant flying United.
I don't agree with your assessment and suggestion that avoiding Boeing aircraft is "irrational". The decision to do so by some may have less to do with a sense of personal safety and more to do with a moral view to take a stand against a company that so obviously could not care less about safety and feels, at least for now, too reckless to be taken seriously.
While I am not one of those...
I don't agree with your assessment and suggestion that avoiding Boeing aircraft is "irrational". The decision to do so by some may have less to do with a sense of personal safety and more to do with a moral view to take a stand against a company that so obviously could not care less about safety and feels, at least for now, too reckless to be taken seriously.
While I am not one of those folks that will avoid a Boeing aircraft, I will absolutely not fly on any model of the MAX.
@ shoeguy -- If someone wants to take that moral stand, I totally respect that and think that's fair. Yet interestingly that's not even mentioned as a concept in stories like this. There's a big difference between taking a moral stand and claiming that you're endangering your family's life by getting on a Boeing jet.
I don't agree. Sorry. While flying is broadly safer than say, riding in a car, statistically, there is too much information out there about the construction of the MAX to support the consideration that the risk of flying in one is greater than say, another Boeing model. The Alaska Airlines incident illustrates that well. Some people will genuinely feel like they are endangering themselves or their families, by opting to fly on a Boeing jet,...
I don't agree. Sorry. While flying is broadly safer than say, riding in a car, statistically, there is too much information out there about the construction of the MAX to support the consideration that the risk of flying in one is greater than say, another Boeing model. The Alaska Airlines incident illustrates that well. Some people will genuinely feel like they are endangering themselves or their families, by opting to fly on a Boeing jet, even a specific model, and that's OK. That's Boeing's problem to solve for, not the flying public.
Flying a max is still many times safer than driving down an interstate. Irrational risk assessment is the perfect term.
Regarding the comment about not wanting to sit near the emergency exit, one flight I was on last year somebody actually asked to be moved from the exit row as it "made them feel unsafe".
It got a "that's a new one on me" from the cabin crew, and a "huh???!" from me...
People might avoid Boeing for reasons other than physical safety. Reasons could include a moral stand against the company; emotional safety; brand association; other reasons. It’s almost always shortsighted to call other people’s behaviors illogical or irrational. My ability to look beyond the surface has propelled my multi-decade, eight-figure career.
@ Biglaw V10 Partner -- And those are all fair points, yet interestingly they're not addressed in the story. No one says they're taking a moral stand against Boeing, which I'd totally understand (if someone were so inclined). Rather, this is being framed in the context of "physical" safety, and a fear of something actually happening.
Agreed. I get that from a logical perspective the absolute risk is so small that the relative risk between Airbus and Boeing is probably not worth measuring. And I agree it’s silly to drive a long distance only to avoid a Boeing. But part of me doesn’t like rewarding a company with my business when their priorities seem so misaligned. And I get that it might seem like punishing the airline more than the manufacturer,...
Agreed. I get that from a logical perspective the absolute risk is so small that the relative risk between Airbus and Boeing is probably not worth measuring. And I agree it’s silly to drive a long distance only to avoid a Boeing. But part of me doesn’t like rewarding a company with my business when their priorities seem so misaligned. And I get that it might seem like punishing the airline more than the manufacturer, and that one person’s decision won’t have a large impact. But we have seen the airlines can put pressure on Boeing to improve like they did recently. I live in Chicago and recently booked a flight to New York. I don’t chase status with any specific airline, so I had a million options to chose from. I found myself leaning towards Airbus planes all other things being equal with price, schedule, etc. I can honestly see myself continuing to do that for a while and including it as a variable in my decision making, even if it’s not the biggest one.
I don't think it's irrational at all - most people don't fly as much as you Ben, and many have significant anxiety about when they do especially with their family which includes young kids. I also think it's a good thing, hopefully means less airlines flying and buying Boeing planes and means they finally get a kick up the arse to stop bean-counting with a race to the bottom on quality/safety and start to compete on quality/safety not share price.
@ vlcnc -- I understand the anxiety argument, but there's a difference between anxiety and suggesting something is a rational fear. I'm sort of irrationally scared of chairlifts, but I'm not going to pass that off as something that others should be scared of.
As far as airlines shifting away from ordering Boeing aircraft, I just don't ever see that happening. If anything, airlines have opportunistically picked up Boeing aircraft when the company is in...
@ vlcnc -- I understand the anxiety argument, but there's a difference between anxiety and suggesting something is a rational fear. I'm sort of irrationally scared of chairlifts, but I'm not going to pass that off as something that others should be scared of.
As far as airlines shifting away from ordering Boeing aircraft, I just don't ever see that happening. If anything, airlines have opportunistically picked up Boeing aircraft when the company is in trouble. Just look at Delta finally ordering the 737 MAX in 2022.
I think airlines have made the calculation people won't care enough, but if behaviours of passengers actually choosing airlines that don't fly the Boeing 737 Max come home to roost, I don't see that trend continuing. And it is something that one thinks of fleetingly, my partner booked my mother in law who I adore on a short-haul Turkish Airlines flight and honestly I am nervous she is going to be flying on a 737...
I think airlines have made the calculation people won't care enough, but if behaviours of passengers actually choosing airlines that don't fly the Boeing 737 Max come home to roost, I don't see that trend continuing. And it is something that one thinks of fleetingly, my partner booked my mother in law who I adore on a short-haul Turkish Airlines flight and honestly I am nervous she is going to be flying on a 737 Max. Even a fleeting thought about it, the fact average passengers are thinking about it, regardless of whether you think it is irrational, is a bad thing for Boeing and airlines that fly this plane.
Also with regards to plane orders, I'd like to see if that is actually happening with non-US airlines.
Such anxiety IS irrational - this at is the whole point of the post