"air travel is still safer than flying." Hmmmm.
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
321 points (97.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7192 readers
914 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Flying out of the window.
If you don't travel in Boeing you have no reason for existence. Your lack of support for Boeing shareholders is appalling. The company shareholder has sent an expert to perform corrective action. The expert is known for his competence due to solving other major problems like John Barnett.
Remember, we all should work for the best the quarterly return and please our masters.
load more comments
(7 replies)
The most dangerous part of the journey is still the drive to and from the airport (except for lucky folks like me who have mass transit options).
Right, but I'm driving the car and responsible for maintenance. I can mitigate some of the risk, and have insight into the level of risk.
When I get in a plane, I want absolute confidence in the competence of the pilot and crew. I want to know that the plane has been inspected and certified, and the maintenance logged and triple checked.
Finding out that my confidence was misplaced, that the manufacturer has been cutting corners related to safety and structural integrity, that's a deal breaker for me. An auto manufacturer can regain trust with a new model car that fixes previous defects. Airplanes are in service for decades, and you don't always know what plane you'll get until you are at the gate. Airlines will avoid buying new Boeing aircraft, which will drive down the prices, which will encourage further cost-eaving measures at the expense of quality assurance.
Just wait until you find out what happens in the car industry.
If you think poor safety standards and corner cutting is bad in aviation you’ll cringe when you read up on what happens with car manufacturers.
Right, but if my airbag doesn't deploy or the brakes fail, I don't get sucked out of the car at 30,000 feet.
No but you could just as easily lose control of your car for a dozen other mechanical failures causing you to drive straight into oncoming traffic or a bridge abutment.
Sure, but so could the pilot. In my car, the buckle, the airbag, the crumple zones, they might save my life. If the plane crashes because of mechanical failure or pilot error, it would make a bridge abutment seem like a featherbed.
Not sure how you missed the point but some how you did.
The point is mechanical failures in cars happen. If it happens to something like the airbag or brakes then it’s likely not a life threatening issue.
If something happens to your wheels or suspension, your axels, etc then it can have catastrophic outcomes when you’re traveling at highway speeds.
People die all the time to mechanical failures in cars resulting in freak accidents. They happen more than you think and a lot of the time it comes down to manufacturing defects. Haven’t you ever seen fight club? The car industry is a lot more lax on safety standards then aviation is and the annual death statistics backs it up.
On the other hand mechanical failures on planes happen all the time. The reality is very few of them result in inoperability and therefore death. It would also require a series of freak incidents to fully cause a crash. Watch the show “Air Disasters” for reference. It’s virtually never just one thing or one mechanical failure that causes a catastrophic incident.
I think you've missed the point. The side came off a plane, and we've learned that it was because Boeing and the airlines cheaped out on the bolts, the labor, and the maintenance, and then dodged safety regulations.
Yes, cars are also dangerous. Driving is statistically more dangerous than flying, but if a car manufacturer knowingly dodges safety regulations, that's the end of that car. The difference is that, while everyone remembers the Pinto for the explosions, but nobody thinks of it when they buy an F150.
Boeing can't do that with a new model of plane. They have to keep promising that they aren't skipping bolts anymore, and that the side of the plane won't fall off again. It's going to take a long time to earn back that trust.
we've learned that it was because Boeing and the airlines cheaped out on the bolts, the labor, and the maintenance, and then dodged safety regulations
And the same exact thing happens with cars except it happens more easily, more often, and affects more of the population.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Statistically you've been in a car where the airbag wouldn't fail to deploy but instead would explode and shoot shrapnel into your face shotgun style.
All the more reason to drive defensively. As a driver, I maintain some level of control, and can choose how much additional risk I am comfortable with. As a passenger, I'm putting my trust, my future, my life into someone else's hands. If a panel fell off the side of a city bus, I would have similar concerns related to boarding one. And a bus drives really slow in the right lane, on the ground.
The more important difference is that the plane cannot pull over in the event of an engine or steering malfunction. Everything needs to continue working for the aircraft to continue its defiance of gravity.
Not necessarily true. Quite a bit can fail (including engine and steering systems) on a modern aircraft and it will still safely defy gravity.
You're also having to place that confidence in every other person you're sharing the road with, as well as their dealers and mechanics.
Which is the same as a plane. I'm putting my confidence in every other pilot, mechanic, air traffic controller, ground crew, and security. So that's a wash.
But it's not a wash. That's like saying a shark attack or an undercurrent could kill you at a beach, so it's a wash. One is incredibly more likely than the other.
There are at least two capable airline pilots on every flight, plus air traffic control in case anything goes wrong. There's very little traffic in the skies, and that traffic is highly regulated and coordinated, so a collision is incredible unlikely. There are tons of cars on the roads, many of which have distracted, sleepy, or intoxicated drivers, and it takes just one to ruin your day or even your life.
You may feel your risk is lower when driving because you're "in control," but the statistics don't lie, you're incredibly more likely to die in a car than a plane.
Sure, but nobody here is talking about statistics. This article, this entire conversation, is about trust and confidence. I'm confident I can drive a car to the store and not die. Statistically, I'm more likely to die in an accident within a mile from my house, but that doesn't stop me from driving in my neighborhood because I trust myself to drive. Accidents can happen anywhere to anyone, and there are a lot of other drivers to be worried about, but I can take steps to mitigate some of that risk. The higher chance of dying in my car doesn't make anyone feel better about flying, it just makes you feel worse about driving. The two levels of trust are unrelated.
Like I know I have a higher chance of being killed by a deer. Statistically, deer kill a lot of people by causing car accidents, and they spread diseases. Wolves don't kill anyone. Wolf attacke are extremely rare, and increasing the population of wolves in the wild would be very good for our North American ecosystems. But if I'm sitting in my backyard, and a wolf approaches from the left and a deer approaches from the right, I'm going to be worried about the wolf. Statistics don't enter into the thought process.
I need to trust planes to board one. I have to drive my kids to school, so I have to get comfortable with the risk of getting behind the wheel. I don't have to get on a Boeing airplane.
But you don't have to drive, that's a cultural misconception.
One day my car's battery was completely dead. Instead of just having my kids take the day off, I took them in my bicycle trailer and picked up a new battery on my way home. I could totally go without a car if necessary.
Taking a bus or train is much safer than driving. Cycling is also net healthier than driving because the health benefits outweigh the conflict with cars. We spend so much money researching ways to make cars safer (air bags, crumple zones, lane drift alerts, etc), yet it's still incredibly dangerous.
The problem with driving is that people "feel" safer than they are and get complacent. It's similar to someone working in a large machining plant or something, they'll feel safer after a year than a week on the job, but they're probably more at risk because they're more complacent about the risks.
Statistics don't enter into the thought process
But they absolutely should. If you want to be safer, trust the statistics. Almost any mode of transportation is safer than driving, and the ones more dangerous than driving are often more dangerous because of cars.
Airplanes are still way safer than cars. Yeah, one had a door blow out, but the risk of something like that happening is so incredibly low compared to someone crashing into your car that it's almost not worth talking about. The news overreports the one-off cases and underreports the common cases, because surprising news sells. If the news reported every car death, you'd quickly stop reading it because it's just so common.
I just once want some accountability for a company, is that so much to ask? So it will be Airbus for me, at least until they inevitably fuck us over also.
Most people have public transit options.
Just some city planners make it faster to go in a personal car. The solution is easy, though. Block of 4 lanes in the highway for busses only. And if theres still more than 4 lanes for cars, block those lanes off for bicycles only.
I know most people do have some options, so I should have specified that mine are particularly good. Cheap, fast, comfy, and easy.
Yeah, its always an option (ok, only 99% of the time). The difference is how easy it is.
still, most people just make excuses to solve their cognative dissonance. and thats my point: if people actually took the public transport in the places where its annoying, then it would become the most convenient option as they get more funding, more routes, more frequent stops, and dedicated lanes for local and rapid public transport in both directions
I agree there; I find it frustrating when people who know that public transport is the better option in the long run never use it when it's inconvenient yet also complain that it doesn't get better.
It will get better if we all use it. We all need to take that step though.
Recent issues in geologic time, perhaps, but these last few months are just the latest in a many-year buildup.
Yeah. As demonstrated by an excellent Last Week Tonight segment, the company that used to be a byword for engineering excellence has been a stock value maximization company that sometimes (shoddily) builds airplanes ever since the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas.
Don't worry, folks. The crews of those planes are way more paranoid about anything that could happen than you could possibly imagine. I'd bet the time a standard go-around takes has about tripled for most Boeing flight crews with new-ish jets
I'd bet the time a standard go-around takes has about tripled for most Boeing flight crews with new-ish jets
Based on what? I’d bet nothing has changed from that perspective.
I live right under the approach/departure path for the main runway at our airport, a couple of miles away. Probably around 100 flights/day total in/out, many of them B737s, flying around 2000' overhead. I'm wondering if I should expect to find pieces of Boeing's Finest in the back yard or coming through the ceiling soon. So far there's been no "blue ice" but there has also been no door plugs or tires, so could just be a matter of time. Fortunately the busiest carrier uses Embraers for many if not most of their traffic so that's probably a good thing for me.
view more: next ›