- cross-posted to:
- travel@eviltoast.org
- cross-posted to:
- travel@eviltoast.org
If you scroll down to Torleif Stumo there’s a quite interesting story. I was amazed that an aircraft that started to taxi returned to the gate and reconnected to let a passenger exit who discovered he was on a 737 max – and that the airline rebooked him at no extra cost. Then I realized after my speed-reading what I missed: this guy was the brother of a passenger who was killed in the Ethiopian Airlines flight. I wonder if it was Ethiopian Airlines that he was gave him the extra sympathetic treatment.
The article starts with another passenger demanding to exit after the gate disconnected, upon finding he was on a 737 Max. They omitted how he was treated w.r.t costs. I’m sure all airlines probably have in their contract of carriage a clause that allows them to change aircraft and presumably the passengers have no rights. I say that because you aren’t even guaranteed a layover. E.g. if your ticket is from New York to California via layover in Vegas, and for whatever reason the airline needs to reroute you last minute connecting in Detroit instead, the contract of carriage allows them to make changes is substantial as that and passengers have /no rights/ in that regard so long as the airline reaches the final destination on the correct day.
booking sites withhold aircraft
It always annoys me when a air travel booking site withholds the aircraft info. I used to be able to find the matching flight on matrix itasoftware but that site seems to be getting less reliable (random acts of tor hostility). The article mentions an effort underway to change that.
Relevance
Superficially this article seems unrelated to sustainable travel. But Boycotts on Boeing are actually inherently pro-environment because Boeing is an #ALEC member and ALEC finances the #climateDenial movement. Boycotting all air travel would be as well, but some are forced to choose the lesser of evils in which case avoiding Boeing is at least more sustainable (avoids supporting a green-washing ALEC member).
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t care about the safety problems: like after the md80 issue. That ugly-ass Boeing hate machine will be the safest thing out there as it will be freshly reviewed and assessed.
No, the 737max is just an ugly airplane, with everything the modern airplane has to truly make the experience of flying horrible.
I truly understood this when, while using the loo in the rear of the plane, I realized the separation between the galley and the loo was by an incomplete wall more resembling a secondary-school bathroom stall wall than a real wall. I could see FA shoes from my view on the loo
Absolutely revolting, even before the tuba solo began.
(and even if you’re in row 9, you have to use the stalls all the way at the back of the plane, can’t have the peons walking through business or first class)
Boeing has been a trash, corrupt welfare queen living off taxpayer for a long while now. Good to see them exposed for being pathetic business it is.
Way to turn national pride into late capitalism poster child… money changer and bean counter engineering at its fines 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Fucking parasites.
How many 737s are MAXes?
Any made over the past 5-ish years.
Yeesh.
I’m not sure why you would draw the line between between Max and non-Max. The Max has the biggest embarrassment largely because of the faulty AoA sensors but as @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca was implying, the 737 Max will likely undergo so much scrutiny that it will be made into something relatively safe (due to having more eyes on it than probably any other aircraft). Every Boeing pilot in the world is probably well aware not to trust the AoA sensor now that lives have been lost due to that sensor.
The big problem is not the product, but the infrastructure and culture of people at Boeing. Boeing is an extremely conservative company hell-bent on profit for the shareholders. This is not just an engineering mistake. It’s about how the faulty sensor was known to Boeing, and Boeing decided to cover it up. Deciding not to train pilots about the known-faulty angle of attack sensor because that training would cost too much.
There are Boeing pilots and then there are Airbus pilots. It’s very rare for a pilot to be trained in both due to the costs. Whenever you fly in a Boeing, your safety is in the hands of that whole Boeing infrastructure – from the engineers who try to make manager decisions (i.e. money saving decisions) to pilots who lack training when Boeing decides something doesn’t require extra specific training.
If you read the article, it’s important to notice Ed Pierson (the first person in the article to demand to get off the plane) had 1st hand exposure to the engineering at Boeing for that aircraft. Not sure what his role was but he was apparently an insider and it’s quite remarkable that he was too skiddish to be a passenger on one.
In Europe the culture is much different. If there is a safety concern or issue you do not even ask the question about the cost of protecting human lives. You just do the necessary. Airbus engineers can also make mistakes, but they would not cover it up or compare the cost of safety to the risk of getting caught neglecting safety.
It’s the people getting off MAXes that are drawing that line, thus my pondering.
Ah, I made a bad assumption. I figured you were in the same camp of nixing the Max but not the rest.
The masses just hear repeated headlines of 737 Max failing. Thus they only think the problem is with the nuts and bolts of that aircraft. I highly suggest people watch the hour-long PBS documentary which details the business decisions Boeing makes when a problem becomes known to them. If everyone watched the documentary we would likely see people trying to exit any Boeing aircraft not just the Max.
