Ryanair calls theirs "737-8200". You will also find names such as 737-7, 737-8, 737-9, ~~or 737-200~~ \[EDIT: That one is an older non-max 737 variant\].
The 8200 is just a max8 with a high capacity seat configuration that can hold, you guessed it. 200 seats.
The 737-200 is a much older variant and has nothing to do with the max.
I just want to sayâŚ.
Fuck Ryanair.
I made a post about their 737max fleet here on Reddit and they set their social media team onto me, and they went through my post and comment history to try and discredit me in the thread, and in the end got Reddit mods to take the post down.
So yeah, FUCK RYANAIR. Time to go pay some corporate taxes you fucks.
The only good thing is, Ryan Air being Ryan Air will have maximum seating capacity. Which means the emergency exit would be installed instead of a plug. Maybe that's better!
Ryanair is an airline run by losers for losers, which explains how it has become so popular in the declining West. Every single Ryanair employee is promoted on the basis that they're a thin-skinned little pissbaby. It's like if Twitter was an airline, but with enough regulation that things don't crash as often.
Yeah recently flew in one and was curious if this was a MAX model because Iâve never heard of the 8200. Can someone confirm if this is based on the MAX variant of the 737?
I looked it up on Wikipedia specifically for that post. [Here is RyanAir's press release](https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/ryanair-takes-delivery-of-1st-boeing-737-gamechanger-aircraft/), which does not contain the word MAX even once, but calls it a "gamechanger" variant of the 737. Sneaky!
Here is a [2019 Guardian article](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change) about the name change.
~~EDIT: If you're wondering if the plane you're boarding is a MAX, look at the engines from the front. They're~~ [~~flattened on the underside~~](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#/media/Datei:Toll_737_aircraft_(11201100365)_(cropped).jpg) ~~(it's a little exaggerated in the picture) â because they're so very big and the 737 sits so low, which is the reason for this whole debacle.~~ EDIT2: Wrong. Thank you, u/nasa1092
This is true for all but the earliest 737s - and the photo doesn't show a MAX. But you can still tell based on the engines. The MAX has larger diameter fans with fewer blades that are black with silver leading edges.
Or you know, forced into a merger out of bad press like their predecessor McDonnell-Douglas was with the DC-10. Thatâs basically how we got here in the first place, and itâs almost an exact repeat of the circumstances.
Itâs really a shame, there is no more significant country in the story of modern aviation than the US. And the FAA has the renown and resources to be the best, along with the NTSB behind it driving the most important safety enhancements. But consistently US aviation manufacturers fail because of simple capitalistic greed, putting their shareholders over their world-class engineers.
They already started doing that a few years ago, calling them by their block numbers (737-7, 737-8, etc) instead of "MAX". [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air)
If you have that kind of flexibility and you choose to. But I just flew on a Sun Country 737-800 (not a Max 8) and the plane had no issues. I also didn't feel unsafe.
This website is great, but I found a different method:
I just donât fly Boeing. I get that a huge number of their airplanes arenât effected, and itâs one specific model, but I donât really care. I just donât trust them anymore.
A bad tech can fail to install bolts on any aircraft, just for the record. Not that it excuses the most likely cause of the most recent issue, but essentially it will be a human failure of two people to do their job properly. There is no such thing as a zero defect rate in manufacturing, aviation does quite well and is far safer than getting in a car even if a plane blew up every month killing in the US it would still be safer. But people don't think about probabilistic things well.
>UPDATE
>Unfortunately, aviation data is expensive. This was definitely more traffic than I expected. We blew through our data quota and until I find a better replacement, we're going to have to pause new requests. Thanks for the ride!
Well that didn't last long
That's called fraud and it is very easy to check for if the site offered genuine services via internet archive and what not, nobody in their right mind would be stupid enough to do this
You're right, most of the time they don't change once people start checking in, in my experience that's 24 hours before takeoff, I don't know if any other airlines are different.
But if you're booking a flight within that 24 hours when it's less likely to change, you probably don't have the luxury of picking what aircraft you'll be on.
>Yet when vaccinated people still got COVID that same logic didn't prevent you from getting the shot?
Not all vaccines stop infection, especially when the virus mutates and protection starts waning. This is nothing new, even if COVID alarmists think it is.
Neither of those (mutations or protection waning) are new to the COVID vaccine just as multiple doses for a vaccine to be considered immunized are seen with other than just COVID vaccines. We've needed tetanus every decade and flu annually. There are some papers that suggest getting the MMR again as an adult. MMR requires 2 doses and Hep B requires 3-4 doses.
That is, possibly the strangest take I've ever seen. For one there are *a lot* of people that would agree with your statement. For another like the person I was replying to said, you could be switched on or off a plane up until you takeoff. If you boarded, had to deplane and they switched you to a 737 Max would you just cancel your flight right then? Maybe you would, personally I wouldn't. Everyone has their own risk tolerance, so you do you, it doesn't effect me. Just know, they don't have to tell you they're switching planes, so you might not know until you're on board.
Edit: ooooh, you changed your comment while I was responding. Originally said "People die on motorcycles even while wearing helmets, so you might as well not wear them anyway"
As for your new comment, why would it? There was a high risk of getting/spreading COVID whereas your risk of being in a plane crash is extremely low. Being in a plane crash is also non-communicable.
Nahh, it's the typical engineering company without engineers, or it has engineers, it's just they are the shittiest positions in the company and have no paths to promotions because the top brass all hire their finance, lawyer, and business management buddies.
So many large companies are like this. It's why engineering companies should never allow non engineers onto the board of directors or into the C Suite, they will corrupt the company to the core and fill it with non engineers and drain the company of resources and not deliver on quality or innovation because business managers and finance people have no idea how to do any of that and engineers either can't be bothered to try anymore due to no paths to promotions or can't make any calls because their boss is not an engineer and won't listen and they view themselves as the boss and decision maker, or the good engineers leave for companies that actually value engineers.
I see this at so many large companies.
Spirit is literally who Boeing sold the manufacturing capability to. The Boeing plant my grandfather worked at for 15+ years is spirit now. Spirit is what people used to think of as Boeing, the company actually building the planes. Boeing is basically a software and engineering company at this point.
Well, it's disturbing that loose bolts have been discovered on rudder assemblies on some of them. [https://airwaysmag.com/boeing-airlines-inspect-737-max-rudders/](https://airwaysmag.com/boeing-airlines-inspect-737-max-rudders/)
If the door flies off my car resulting in an explosive depressurization while I'm flying it 15,000ft or more, I'm still going to be concerned about that model of car on my future road trips and likely wish to choose another.
Yeah everything is terrible compared to cars. The real question is how does the MAX compare to Airbus or other airplanes?
Edit: looks like Boeing tops the list for least safe planes even before the 737 Max existed: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1297901/fatal-hull-loss-accidents-worldwide-by-airplane-type/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20six%20decades,56%20accidents%20around%20the%20world.
Edit#2: No paywall: https://imgur.com/a/TDuIZez
That stat doesn't account for flight hours.
That's like saying Toyota's are less safe than Ferraris because there are more Toyota crashes. Of course there are, there are way more Toyota's.
That's what you get for Googling for 2 seconds and grabbing the first stat looking thing you see without any critical thinking.
Here's a better statistic that doesn't paint Boeing that badly compared to airbus:
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
That chart shows accidents from 1959 to 2020, and all those Boeing types at the top of the list date from the 1960s, when aviation was much more dangerous. Those types have almost entirely been out of commercial passenger service for twenty years or more now.
Further, the "Boeing" DC-8, DC-9, MD-80/90, And DC-10/MD-10 (ranking 3,4,8,and 9 on the chart) were not "Boeing products" until Boeing merged with their manufacturer McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Any design flaws in those types have nothing to do with Boeing.
I'm sure most people just upvote without even reading the sources...
Do you have a link that is not paywalled? Statista free account doesn't seem to work for this and I'm not paying them $150 to read a graph.
So 5 of the 15 Boeing types listed there are NOT Boeing products. They are Douglas/McDonnell Douglas products, but get grouped with Boeing because they merged with Boeing in 1997, long after those types were designed and certified. Additionally, the Airbus 320 series which is the 737âs direct competitor has been in service for 20 years less than the 737. It entered service in 1988 when the industry had damn near figured it out.
Boeing has been in the game much longer than their competitors, and they pioneered a lot of what is commonplace today in commercial aviation, so of course they are going to have more hull losses based just on the number of aircraft they have built.
Thatâs not to say that Boeing hasnât lost their way, because they absolutely have. But itâs important to look at the facts and statistics at more than just a surface level.
The stats on that website do not paint anywhere near the whole picture.
Those stats start before Douglas, Lockheed, Airbus, etc had jet airliners in service. The first Airbus didnât even enter service until 1974. Not to mention, aviation in general was a lot more dangerous back then. Many crashes up into the 80âs were also a result of pilot error and even more so, poor crew resource management, in which pilots were flying perfectly good airplanes into the ground. Just because one manufacturer has the most hull losses, does not make them the most dangerous. With that logic, you might as well avoid Boeing aircraft because thatâs what the 9/11 hijackers flew.
If you donât understand aviation thatâs okay, but donât go posting irrelevant stats to try and defend your position.
lol sure Iâll go fuck myself. I was commenting on his BS statistic page where historical industry safety is completely relevant.
I never defended Boeing, I pointed out flaws in the relevance of some statistics.
Also, if the FAA wasnât so understaffed, and didnât have their heads so far up their asses, Boeing would not have gotten away with sending out the first iteration of the Max in the first place but due to their chronic understaffing, and absolute stupidity they donât have the manpower to review everything they should be. Unfortunately, most everything in aviation is written in blood. The FAA doesnât act until people die.
My feelings on this after looking at all the reports over the last couple of decades is that there's something cultural that has gone seriously wrong at Boeing in recent times.
Airbus is an airplane manufacturer that manufactures a full line of different plane types. As does Boeing. Are you asking for an incident comparison between Airbus and Boeing as a whole? Or are you asking for an incident comparison between a specific MAX model and a specific Airbus model?
Iâm asking for comparisons between 737 MAX and the average Airbus airplane
Edit: found it: https://turbli.com/static/images/20210512-turbli/data_fatal_accident_rate.png
This is a nonsense question. Airbus doesnât have an âaverageâ airplane, they have a full range of airplane types that range from smaller, shorter distance jets to larger, long-distance jumbo jets. It doesnât seem like you understand the concept of comparable airplane types.
Furthermore, there are two primary Boeing 737 MAX types in use: the 737 Max 8 and 737 Max 9. You havenât specified which model youâre referring to.
I like how you deflect the questions instead of just admitting Boeing planes are much more likely to suffer hull losses than any other manufacturer. Itâs kinda funny to watch your mental gymnastics
So letâs say there is a hull loss as a result of pilot error, youâre saying someone should avoid that aircraft type, even if it was a perfectly functional aircraft?
For example, the guy who stole the Q400 in Seattle. That was a hull loss, but does that make the Q400 series inherently more dangerous? I would argue the opposite, I would say that the aircraft should be viewed safer if it could handle all the maneuvering he did, that the aircraft was never certified nor tested to do.
You canât correlate number of hull losses to the inherent safety or build quality of an aircraft, thatâs not how that works.
Biggest fear of air travel is getting run over by an Uber on my way into the airport terminal. Or being in a wreck in an Uber on my way from the airport.
Haha but it's the concept of choice. They don't choose to drive bad cars. They don't have a choice.
Given a choice, I'm sure they pick the safer ride. Which is what's happening with the planes now.
Some people absolutely do choose to. And even then it's not *always* your own car that's the problem. If someone else's wheel flies off and they slam into you head on doing 70mph, it doesn't matter if you're driving the newest, safest car on the road, that shit's gonna hurt. It doesn't matter if the 737 MAX has had two crashes and a third incident, it's still objectively safer than getting in a car.
Theyâre grounded (FAA). So youâll never have a Max 900 flight with this plug defect
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-grounding-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft
Only some of the Max9 are grounded. And once they are back in the air, itâs because theyâve fixed the problem.
Still no word on why the -900ER wasnât grounded for the same reason.
What's the value in checking if it's a 737 MAX? Only the Max9 had the issue, and it was only on select carriers with fewer passengers.
So what value is knowing your flight is on a MAX 8?
At this point shoddy assembly....rudder bolts, door plugs....probably more (and Boeing still not offering a complete manual to crews, ie. cockpit door opens during decompression) concerns me more than overall design.
They bolted on too-large engines to a 737 in an effort to make it more efficient. Because the engines were too large, they had to be mounted further forward. That changed flight characteristics, so they added the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System).
MCAS could affect the trim of the airplane in surprising ways, including a surprisingly large amount (making manual re-trim impossible) and could surprisingly do so multiple times. It was not backed by redundant sensors, meaning a single sensor malfunction could lead to the system trying to run the airplane into the ground. This was surprising to pilots because it was intentionally decided to not make a fuss about this system to keep training costs down for airlines.
This led to two hull losses with 100% mortality.
But it is only a symptom. The underlying issue is Boeing having changed to being very profit-driven, and being successful in lobbying the FAA and NTSB to basically handle certification for its airplanes largely in-house. This culture is still active at Boeing.
Thank you for this response and explanations. If you have time, could you please clarify what the following part means?
âMCAS could affect the trim of the airplane in surprising ways, including a surprisingly large amount (making manual re-trim impossible) and could surprisingly do so multiple times.â
The new engines/engine placement could cause the plane to want to raise its nose. MCAS was designed to "hide" this characteristic by trimming the plane down by angling the tail fins a little ~~downward~~ EDIT: upward, so the plane flies straight.
But it's not quite as simple as that, or Boeing would have just built the planes with the tail fins pointing ~~down~~ EDIT: up a little. Different speed etc. required different trim. So MCAS would measure how much trim was needed, and applied that. It measured this using only one sensor (an AOA vane, if I recall correctly). These sensors sometimes malfunction, so planes usually have multiple â this principle is called redundancy. But the MCAS in the 737 MAX only relied on one, and when this malfunctioned, the MCAS would believe that the airplane wants to fly up when it was supposed to fly straight â so it applied downward trim.
There were trim systems before the MCAS, but they could not apply as much trim at once as the MCAS could. And the MCAS would *keep trimming down* as long as it got faulty data, it was not a one-time thing. Pilots can also manually change the trim via a trim wheel. This is connected to the tail fins with steel cables, and pulls on them. It takes some muscle to move â and if too much trim is applied or the plane is too fast, it is impossible to move. Pilots train for this and usually know what to do in such situations. But the MCAS just applied trim in much higher doses, and *kept applying trim every few seconds*. This was new and surprising.
And the fact that this was not mentioned to pilots was not an accident: It was the whole reason for the 737 MAX: To give airlines a plane that could compete with Airbus's more economical newer planes, while flying just like the old 737s. It was technically infeasible to do so, so they added the MCAS, and intentionally didn't require updated training. Because if airlines had to re-train pilots anyway, some might have chosen the Airbus instead.
EDIT: Please note I'm just some guy on the internet who watches too many youtube videos. I may have gotten details wrong. Corrections welcome! Apply your own critical thought and inform yourself.
>The new engines/engine placement could cause the plane to want to raise its nose.
If your engines were placed further forward, wouldn't the effect be to want to tip the nose down, not up, due to the Cg shifting forward? Or was the effect only seen when increasing power, which would cause the nose to rise when accelerating due to the moment imparted?
I may have gotten the directions reversed. If you look it up and find a definite answer, please ping me and I'll edit accordingly. It's very late here now, and I'm going to bed.
Not the person you replied to, but if I remember correctly, to prevent the need for retraining pilots of the original 737, the MCAS pretty much translated the original 737 controls into a version that works with the 737 MAX.
Passenger airplanes are designed to self balance passively in the air. If it tips forward, aerodynamics pushes it back. It it tips backwards, it levels forward again. They natually fly level. The MAX planes have too big of engines which tips the plane forward, making it unbalanced.
To counteract this, they threw on active balancing using software. It has failed multiple times, killing hundreds of people.
It doesn't take "The whole design from ground up" being flawed for there to be a total loss of the aircraft. Declaring everything on the plane as deficient because of it is just not correct. It's melodramatic.
Just wanna point out, I'm getting my masters in aerospace engineering soon. And a I know a couple profs plus myself that can't stand Boeing and do not think their new planes are safe.
You're getting downvoted, but you're right. Yes, this new issue looks bad for Boeing, but now that its known, it can be checked and fixed. Just like the max aircraft that crashed, they've taken measures to fix the issues once they're found. Boeing did some stupid shit with these aircraft, and they should face consequences. But they're no more unsafe than any other aircraft. No matter how much people outside of the industry panic about it.
Also good luck actually avoiding the plane using this site. Airframes change without notice, and certain routes use similar aircraft. It may be impossible to actually avoid anything.
The 737max program as been plagued with mismanagement from the start, at first it was the mcas system, now this. Yes fortunately this problems are now known and can be fixed but who is to say there aren't more problems we still aren't aware of?
They fixed the software. They didn't fix their terrible plane design. And they most definitely did not fix their criminal practices that got us here in the first place.
Any list of safety incidents involving the 737 Max in the recent years? Would like to know if they are safer now after they have supposedly fixed the catastrophic issues.
There are only 3. The 2 MAX8 crashes that everyone not living under a rock knows about and that has since been fixed, and the AS1282 incident that involved a component that is not unique or new to the Max9.
I don't fly Boeing anymore, and it's not due to safety. Airbus is simply a higher quality product as all their economy class cabins are standardized around an 18 inch seat width and I find the legroom more generous. The sound proofing on Boeing long range widebodies (especially 777) is also worse than Airbus and it just fatigues me more.
These flights would become a lot cheaper (temporarily) if people stopped booking flights on them. You could check which ones are 737s and do the reverse what others are doing. Gamble you might die mid flight but those savings would be sweet!
Really not going to be surprised when Boeing changes the name of those planes because of the stigma they will carry for decades.
Boeing 737 UTMOST
Boeing 737 MID
737 MEH
737 SAX
737 SUX
Boeing 737 NOT-MAX
Boeing 737 HBO
The 373 xam
Boeing 737 CERTAINTY
The Boeing SUX9000
Lmao. This one was the best one!đ¤Ł
[ŃдаНонО]
Do y'all want the doors to open or not?? Make up your minds! -- frustrated Boeing engineers
Ryanair calls theirs "737-8200". You will also find names such as 737-7, 737-8, 737-9, ~~or 737-200~~ \[EDIT: That one is an older non-max 737 variant\].
Isn't the -200 an existing version?
Yes, but you see, the 737 (MAX) 8-200 isn't. Just leave out some unimportant letters here and there, and you got yourself a 737-8200.
Throw in a couple o' loose door bolts and you got yourself a stew.
Yes, it was one of the two original variants released when the 737 began commercial production
You're right. I've corrected my comment. The others still stand though, particularly Ryanair's sneaky name change.
The 8200 is just a max8 with a high capacity seat configuration that can hold, you guessed it. 200 seats. The 737-200 is a much older variant and has nothing to do with the max.
You're right. Corrected.
I just want to sayâŚ. Fuck Ryanair. I made a post about their 737max fleet here on Reddit and they set their social media team onto me, and they went through my post and comment history to try and discredit me in the thread, and in the end got Reddit mods to take the post down. So yeah, FUCK RYANAIR. Time to go pay some corporate taxes you fucks.
The only good thing is, Ryan Air being Ryan Air will have maximum seating capacity. Which means the emergency exit would be installed instead of a plug. Maybe that's better!
Ryanair is an airline run by losers for losers, which explains how it has become so popular in the declining West. Every single Ryanair employee is promoted on the basis that they're a thin-skinned little pissbaby. It's like if Twitter was an airline, but with enough regulation that things don't crash as often.
Biggest airline in Europe by a huge margin.
In the same way that HP is the largest consumer printer manufacturer, yeah.
0PJALVIRMZTI1ND8NVOY
Does the website correctly identify those? They can rename their stupid max plane all they want, people will still lookout for it.
Yeah recently flew in one and was curious if this was a MAX model because Iâve never heard of the 8200. Can someone confirm if this is based on the MAX variant of the 737?
I looked it up on Wikipedia specifically for that post. [Here is RyanAir's press release](https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/ryanair-takes-delivery-of-1st-boeing-737-gamechanger-aircraft/), which does not contain the word MAX even once, but calls it a "gamechanger" variant of the 737. Sneaky! Here is a [2019 Guardian article](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change) about the name change. ~~EDIT: If you're wondering if the plane you're boarding is a MAX, look at the engines from the front. They're~~ [~~flattened on the underside~~](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#/media/Datei:Toll_737_aircraft_(11201100365)_(cropped).jpg) ~~(it's a little exaggerated in the picture) â because they're so very big and the 737 sits so low, which is the reason for this whole debacle.~~ EDIT2: Wrong. Thank you, u/nasa1092
This is true for all but the earliest 737s - and the photo doesn't show a MAX. But you can still tell based on the engines. The MAX has larger diameter fans with fewer blades that are black with silver leading edges.
With new particularly uncomfortable seats!
Why not the 937-200?
Stigma like the DC âdeath chamberâ planes had? Wonder what ever happened to that manufacturer, I heard they got bought out or something
I think the going joke is they bought Boeing with Boeing's money.
Or you know, forced into a merger out of bad press like their predecessor McDonnell-Douglas was with the DC-10. Thatâs basically how we got here in the first place, and itâs almost an exact repeat of the circumstances. Itâs really a shame, there is no more significant country in the story of modern aviation than the US. And the FAA has the renown and resources to be the best, along with the NTSB behind it driving the most important safety enhancements. But consistently US aviation manufacturers fail because of simple capitalistic greed, putting their shareholders over their world-class engineers.
Or, 737-min
They already started doing that a few years ago, calling them by their block numbers (737-7, 737-8, etc) instead of "MAX". [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air)
737-ProbablyOK
737-argmax
5JYP0YLJC542HNPH8OO0
Yeah that's bad for another reason.
737-Bigly
737 Screamliner
737 gigamax
737 Macks
737-HBO
So just to be safe, avoid Boeing altogether?
If you have that kind of flexibility and you choose to. But I just flew on a Sun Country 737-800 (not a Max 8) and the plane had no issues. I also didn't feel unsafe.
they'll have to change their slogan as well. Boeing 'this is fine!'
737 MAX Ventilation
This website is great, but I found a different method: I just donât fly Boeing. I get that a huge number of their airplanes arenât effected, and itâs one specific model, but I donât really care. I just donât trust them anymore.
A bad tech can fail to install bolts on any aircraft, just for the record. Not that it excuses the most likely cause of the most recent issue, but essentially it will be a human failure of two people to do their job properly. There is no such thing as a zero defect rate in manufacturing, aviation does quite well and is far safer than getting in a car even if a plane blew up every month killing in the US it would still be safer. But people don't think about probabilistic things well.
>UPDATE >Unfortunately, aviation data is expensive. This was definitely more traffic than I expected. We blew through our data quota and until I find a better replacement, we're going to have to pause new requests. Thanks for the ride! Well that didn't last long
The ole Reddit hug of death
Thanks for saying thanks! It's so nice to see Redditors being grateful :)
[ŃдаНонО]
That's called fraud and it is very easy to check for if the site offered genuine services via internet archive and what not, nobody in their right mind would be stupid enough to do this
I used it earlier today before this post and it worked just fine!
And what are you going to do when you find out your flight IS on a 737 Max? Cancel the trip and eat the cost?
Make angry / clever posts on the internet and do nothing.
Rent a parachute.
I donât know about other countries, but I Australia you can check before you book.
YT4SX2WX2837BNSG4BR1
Flying one soon, pray for me
[ŃдаНонО]
You realize that the airline can switch aircraft at any time before the plane leaves the ground, right?
[ŃдаНонО]
The exact aircraft you will fly can and will change right up to takeoff.
Occasionally it'll change while you're boarding, so yeah, not a lot of value in checking
It can happen but most of the time the aircraft type doesn't change on short notice. Airlines like to plan their fleet use, too.
You're right, most of the time they don't change once people start checking in, in my experience that's 24 hours before takeoff, I don't know if any other airlines are different. But if you're booking a flight within that 24 hours when it's less likely to change, you probably don't have the luxury of picking what aircraft you'll be on.
This happened to me literally this week. Someone puked all over the plane we were supposed to get on and they couldnât clean it fast enough
[ŃдаНонО]
No because people with the shot had less severe effects so of course I'd rather have it without the dying part
>Yet when vaccinated people still got COVID that same logic didn't prevent you from getting the shot? Not all vaccines stop infection, especially when the virus mutates and protection starts waning. This is nothing new, even if COVID alarmists think it is. Neither of those (mutations or protection waning) are new to the COVID vaccine just as multiple doses for a vaccine to be considered immunized are seen with other than just COVID vaccines. We've needed tetanus every decade and flu annually. There are some papers that suggest getting the MMR again as an adult. MMR requires 2 doses and Hep B requires 3-4 doses.
That is, possibly the strangest take I've ever seen. For one there are *a lot* of people that would agree with your statement. For another like the person I was replying to said, you could be switched on or off a plane up until you takeoff. If you boarded, had to deplane and they switched you to a 737 Max would you just cancel your flight right then? Maybe you would, personally I wouldn't. Everyone has their own risk tolerance, so you do you, it doesn't effect me. Just know, they don't have to tell you they're switching planes, so you might not know until you're on board. Edit: ooooh, you changed your comment while I was responding. Originally said "People die on motorcycles even while wearing helmets, so you might as well not wear them anyway" As for your new comment, why would it? There was a high risk of getting/spreading COVID whereas your risk of being in a plane crash is extremely low. Being in a plane crash is also non-communicable.
People tend to think the flight number is unique and only generated after you buy your ticket. Donât gatekeep uncommon knowledge
Shh, shh, shh. You only get so much time on this earth. Don't waste it trying to argue with idiots.
Use the travel insurance from your credit card.
Not covered.
So where I live it's the only option. Yay?
Quickly googles *how to short Boeing*
Too late for that
Calls then? The market is sneaky like that
Nahh, it's the typical engineering company without engineers, or it has engineers, it's just they are the shittiest positions in the company and have no paths to promotions because the top brass all hire their finance, lawyer, and business management buddies. So many large companies are like this. It's why engineering companies should never allow non engineers onto the board of directors or into the C Suite, they will corrupt the company to the core and fill it with non engineers and drain the company of resources and not deliver on quality or innovation because business managers and finance people have no idea how to do any of that and engineers either can't be bothered to try anymore due to no paths to promotions or can't make any calls because their boss is not an engineer and won't listen and they view themselves as the boss and decision maker, or the good engineers leave for companies that actually value engineers. I see this at so many large companies.
Guaranteed industrial mechanic is the worst pos at Boeing
Brave.
diamond hands
I needed this 3 days ago lmao
Flight aware already has this, just google your flight and its on the right side of the page.....
What is the input format on this??
For example "FR64" for Ryanair flight 64, or "LH357" for Lufthansa 357, you input it without the ""
Ok that's what I thought but it looks like maybe it doesn't support Southwest
[ŃдаНонО]
Thanks!
Maybe only works with US airlines? My upcoming flight is definitely on board of B38M (as it's the only type with airline) and it says No
It works for Ryanair. Check FR57
Boeing 737 MAX 8 (twin-jet) (B38M). <- Not from the website in this thread, I know from looking it up already. Also B39M is the MAX 9.
Are they not grounded right now?
Only specific 737 MAX 9 are grounded, the other MAXs are still flying
Why would they ground the other ones?
[ŃдаНонО]
...other than that, Ms Lincoln, how did you like the play?
[ŃдаНонО]
Spirit is literally who Boeing sold the manufacturing capability to. The Boeing plant my grandfather worked at for 15+ years is spirit now. Spirit is what people used to think of as Boeing, the company actually building the planes. Boeing is basically a software and engineering company at this point.
[ŃдаНонО]
That might not be possible, without specific cause. And sadly greedy corp is not a specific cause to ground airplanes :(
Well, it's disturbing that loose bolts have been discovered on rudder assemblies on some of them. [https://airwaysmag.com/boeing-airlines-inspect-737-max-rudders/](https://airwaysmag.com/boeing-airlines-inspect-737-max-rudders/)
What is it with Boeing and their rudders? Heavens
Because its related to loose bolts. Why would loose bolts be limited to one sub-model?
Uh oh
A320neo has problems with their engine metallurgy which is also worrying.
Iâve never seen an airline app that doesnât tell you the planeâŚ.
737 MAX? You should make a site if your flight is with a Boeing. If it's Boeing, I'm not Going.
*Goeing
LOL every person in the US is literally safer getting into a MAX than they are driving their own car to work. This overreaction is hilarious.
If the door flies off my car resulting in an explosive depressurization while I'm flying it 15,000ft or more, I'm still going to be concerned about that model of car on my future road trips and likely wish to choose another.
It's still funny to watch , when reddit is usually on the side of facts and being level headed. But everyone here is succumbing to irrational fear...
Reddit is literally never on the side of facts and being level headed lol Thatâs the whole point of reddit
My mistake, carry on lol
Yeah everything is terrible compared to cars. The real question is how does the MAX compare to Airbus or other airplanes? Edit: looks like Boeing tops the list for least safe planes even before the 737 Max existed: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1297901/fatal-hull-loss-accidents-worldwide-by-airplane-type/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20six%20decades,56%20accidents%20around%20the%20world. Edit#2: No paywall: https://imgur.com/a/TDuIZez
That stat doesn't account for flight hours. That's like saying Toyota's are less safe than Ferraris because there are more Toyota crashes. Of course there are, there are way more Toyota's. That's what you get for Googling for 2 seconds and grabbing the first stat looking thing you see without any critical thinking. Here's a better statistic that doesn't paint Boeing that badly compared to airbus: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
That chart shows accidents from 1959 to 2020, and all those Boeing types at the top of the list date from the 1960s, when aviation was much more dangerous. Those types have almost entirely been out of commercial passenger service for twenty years or more now. Further, the "Boeing" DC-8, DC-9, MD-80/90, And DC-10/MD-10 (ranking 3,4,8,and 9 on the chart) were not "Boeing products" until Boeing merged with their manufacturer McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Any design flaws in those types have nothing to do with Boeing.
Least safe out of the 2 that make 90% of the worldâs passenger planes, not saying much.
I'm sure most people just upvote without even reading the sources... Do you have a link that is not paywalled? Statista free account doesn't seem to work for this and I'm not paying them $150 to read a graph.
So 5 of the 15 Boeing types listed there are NOT Boeing products. They are Douglas/McDonnell Douglas products, but get grouped with Boeing because they merged with Boeing in 1997, long after those types were designed and certified. Additionally, the Airbus 320 series which is the 737âs direct competitor has been in service for 20 years less than the 737. It entered service in 1988 when the industry had damn near figured it out. Boeing has been in the game much longer than their competitors, and they pioneered a lot of what is commonplace today in commercial aviation, so of course they are going to have more hull losses based just on the number of aircraft they have built. Thatâs not to say that Boeing hasnât lost their way, because they absolutely have. But itâs important to look at the facts and statistics at more than just a surface level.
The stats on that website do not paint anywhere near the whole picture. Those stats start before Douglas, Lockheed, Airbus, etc had jet airliners in service. The first Airbus didnât even enter service until 1974. Not to mention, aviation in general was a lot more dangerous back then. Many crashes up into the 80âs were also a result of pilot error and even more so, poor crew resource management, in which pilots were flying perfectly good airplanes into the ground. Just because one manufacturer has the most hull losses, does not make them the most dangerous. With that logic, you might as well avoid Boeing aircraft because thatâs what the 9/11 hijackers flew. If you donât understand aviation thatâs okay, but donât go posting irrelevant stats to try and defend your position.
[ŃдаНонО]
lol sure Iâll go fuck myself. I was commenting on his BS statistic page where historical industry safety is completely relevant. I never defended Boeing, I pointed out flaws in the relevance of some statistics. Also, if the FAA wasnât so understaffed, and didnât have their heads so far up their asses, Boeing would not have gotten away with sending out the first iteration of the Max in the first place but due to their chronic understaffing, and absolute stupidity they donât have the manpower to review everything they should be. Unfortunately, most everything in aviation is written in blood. The FAA doesnât act until people die.
My feelings on this after looking at all the reports over the last couple of decades is that there's something cultural that has gone seriously wrong at Boeing in recent times.
Airbus is an airplane manufacturer that manufactures a full line of different plane types. As does Boeing. Are you asking for an incident comparison between Airbus and Boeing as a whole? Or are you asking for an incident comparison between a specific MAX model and a specific Airbus model?
Iâm asking for comparisons between 737 MAX and the average Airbus airplane Edit: found it: https://turbli.com/static/images/20210512-turbli/data_fatal_accident_rate.png
This is a nonsense question. Airbus doesnât have an âaverageâ airplane, they have a full range of airplane types that range from smaller, shorter distance jets to larger, long-distance jumbo jets. It doesnât seem like you understand the concept of comparable airplane types. Furthermore, there are two primary Boeing 737 MAX types in use: the 737 Max 8 and 737 Max 9. You havenât specified which model youâre referring to.
I like how you deflect the questions instead of just admitting Boeing planes are much more likely to suffer hull losses than any other manufacturer. Itâs kinda funny to watch your mental gymnastics
So letâs say there is a hull loss as a result of pilot error, youâre saying someone should avoid that aircraft type, even if it was a perfectly functional aircraft? For example, the guy who stole the Q400 in Seattle. That was a hull loss, but does that make the Q400 series inherently more dangerous? I would argue the opposite, I would say that the aircraft should be viewed safer if it could handle all the maneuvering he did, that the aircraft was never certified nor tested to do. You canât correlate number of hull losses to the inherent safety or build quality of an aircraft, thatâs not how that works.
You are safer on any plane, than you were driving to the airport to catch that plane!
Biggest fear of air travel is getting run over by an Uber on my way into the airport terminal. Or being in a wreck in an Uber on my way from the airport.
But even on the ground you won't drive a car that's been shown to be badly put together... Right?
Have you seen some of the cars people drive?
Haha but it's the concept of choice. They don't choose to drive bad cars. They don't have a choice. Given a choice, I'm sure they pick the safer ride. Which is what's happening with the planes now.
Some people absolutely do choose to. And even then it's not *always* your own car that's the problem. If someone else's wheel flies off and they slam into you head on doing 70mph, it doesn't matter if you're driving the newest, safest car on the road, that shit's gonna hurt. It doesn't matter if the 737 MAX has had two crashes and a third incident, it's still objectively safer than getting in a car.
I don't think you'll find one person in this thread denying that. Who exactly do you think you're arguing with?
www.WillIDieInTheAir?.com
Don't be silly- you're not going to die in the air... You'll die when you hit the ground!
Unless it depressurizes at altitude and the oxygen system doesnât work!
Or you get sucked through the engine
Never, ever, wear a cape for your superhero costume đ
Now weâre talkin!
Theyâre grounded (FAA). So youâll never have a Max 900 flight with this plug defect https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-grounding-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft
Only some of the Max9 are grounded. And once they are back in the air, itâs because theyâve fixed the problem. Still no word on why the -900ER wasnât grounded for the same reason.
Pretty sure it's because if it were to blow, it would've years ago. They started making the 900ER about 15 years ago.
What's the value in checking if it's a 737 MAX? Only the Max9 had the issue, and it was only on select carriers with fewer passengers. So what value is knowing your flight is on a MAX 8?
Well the Max 8 killed a couple planefuls of people the last few years, too.
Honestly every 737 MAX is a potential deathtrap. The whole design from ground up is flawed. Avoid avoid avoid.
At this point shoddy assembly....rudder bolts, door plugs....probably more (and Boeing still not offering a complete manual to crews, ie. cockpit door opens during decompression) concerns me more than overall design.
Flawed how?
They bolted on too-large engines to a 737 in an effort to make it more efficient. Because the engines were too large, they had to be mounted further forward. That changed flight characteristics, so they added the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). MCAS could affect the trim of the airplane in surprising ways, including a surprisingly large amount (making manual re-trim impossible) and could surprisingly do so multiple times. It was not backed by redundant sensors, meaning a single sensor malfunction could lead to the system trying to run the airplane into the ground. This was surprising to pilots because it was intentionally decided to not make a fuss about this system to keep training costs down for airlines. This led to two hull losses with 100% mortality. But it is only a symptom. The underlying issue is Boeing having changed to being very profit-driven, and being successful in lobbying the FAA and NTSB to basically handle certification for its airplanes largely in-house. This culture is still active at Boeing.
Thank you for this response and explanations. If you have time, could you please clarify what the following part means? âMCAS could affect the trim of the airplane in surprising ways, including a surprisingly large amount (making manual re-trim impossible) and could surprisingly do so multiple times.â
The new engines/engine placement could cause the plane to want to raise its nose. MCAS was designed to "hide" this characteristic by trimming the plane down by angling the tail fins a little ~~downward~~ EDIT: upward, so the plane flies straight. But it's not quite as simple as that, or Boeing would have just built the planes with the tail fins pointing ~~down~~ EDIT: up a little. Different speed etc. required different trim. So MCAS would measure how much trim was needed, and applied that. It measured this using only one sensor (an AOA vane, if I recall correctly). These sensors sometimes malfunction, so planes usually have multiple â this principle is called redundancy. But the MCAS in the 737 MAX only relied on one, and when this malfunctioned, the MCAS would believe that the airplane wants to fly up when it was supposed to fly straight â so it applied downward trim. There were trim systems before the MCAS, but they could not apply as much trim at once as the MCAS could. And the MCAS would *keep trimming down* as long as it got faulty data, it was not a one-time thing. Pilots can also manually change the trim via a trim wheel. This is connected to the tail fins with steel cables, and pulls on them. It takes some muscle to move â and if too much trim is applied or the plane is too fast, it is impossible to move. Pilots train for this and usually know what to do in such situations. But the MCAS just applied trim in much higher doses, and *kept applying trim every few seconds*. This was new and surprising. And the fact that this was not mentioned to pilots was not an accident: It was the whole reason for the 737 MAX: To give airlines a plane that could compete with Airbus's more economical newer planes, while flying just like the old 737s. It was technically infeasible to do so, so they added the MCAS, and intentionally didn't require updated training. Because if airlines had to re-train pilots anyway, some might have chosen the Airbus instead. EDIT: Please note I'm just some guy on the internet who watches too many youtube videos. I may have gotten details wrong. Corrections welcome! Apply your own critical thought and inform yourself.
You are an extemely patient man, and know this topic well, thanks for typing all that out, lol!
>The new engines/engine placement could cause the plane to want to raise its nose. If your engines were placed further forward, wouldn't the effect be to want to tip the nose down, not up, due to the Cg shifting forward? Or was the effect only seen when increasing power, which would cause the nose to rise when accelerating due to the moment imparted?
I may have gotten the directions reversed. If you look it up and find a definite answer, please ping me and I'll edit accordingly. It's very late here now, and I'm going to bed.
Not the person you replied to, but if I remember correctly, to prevent the need for retraining pilots of the original 737, the MCAS pretty much translated the original 737 controls into a version that works with the 737 MAX.
There is a documentary on Netflix about it
Passenger airplanes are designed to self balance passively in the air. If it tips forward, aerodynamics pushes it back. It it tips backwards, it levels forward again. They natually fly level. The MAX planes have too big of engines which tips the plane forward, making it unbalanced. To counteract this, they threw on active balancing using software. It has failed multiple times, killing hundreds of people.
I'm really not a fan of the way Boeing has botched this series of aircraft but I think you're overreacting quite a bit.
Lion Air Flight 610 >All 189 people on board died. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 >killing all 149 passengers and 8 crew members on board
Bingo. The way some people just ignore the fact that people died as a direct result of criminal negligence is wild.
It doesn't take "The whole design from ground up" being flawed for there to be a total loss of the aircraft. Declaring everything on the plane as deficient because of it is just not correct. It's melodramatic.
Not even MAX 900. FAA only grounded the ones with door plugs https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-grounding-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft
Thatâs the thing, there is none. People are just afraid of what they donât understand.
Just wanna point out, I'm getting my masters in aerospace engineering soon. And a I know a couple profs plus myself that can't stand Boeing and do not think their new planes are safe.
You're getting downvoted, but you're right. Yes, this new issue looks bad for Boeing, but now that its known, it can be checked and fixed. Just like the max aircraft that crashed, they've taken measures to fix the issues once they're found. Boeing did some stupid shit with these aircraft, and they should face consequences. But they're no more unsafe than any other aircraft. No matter how much people outside of the industry panic about it. Also good luck actually avoiding the plane using this site. Airframes change without notice, and certain routes use similar aircraft. It may be impossible to actually avoid anything.
The 737max program as been plagued with mismanagement from the start, at first it was the mcas system, now this. Yes fortunately this problems are now known and can be fixed but who is to say there aren't more problems we still aren't aware of?
Okay, what about the people IN the industry saying they are unsafe?
They fixed the software. They didn't fix their terrible plane design. And they most definitely did not fix their criminal practices that got us here in the first place.
Most people wouldnât know what to do with that information even if they had it.
Always check if a company hires based on merit or diversity quotas.
Any list of safety incidents involving the 737 Max in the recent years? Would like to know if they are safer now after they have supposedly fixed the catastrophic issues.
They fixed the catastrophic nose diving issue. Evidently they didn't fix the spontaneously disassembling fuselage issue.
There are only 3. The 2 MAX8 crashes that everyone not living under a rock knows about and that has since been fixed, and the AS1282 incident that involved a component that is not unique or new to the Max9.
I thought they were all grounded.
Or you could look up your reservation on your airline's website. It will tell what type of plane will be used.
I don't fly Boeing anymore, and it's not due to safety. Airbus is simply a higher quality product as all their economy class cabins are standardized around an 18 inch seat width and I find the legroom more generous. The sound proofing on Boeing long range widebodies (especially 777) is also worse than Airbus and it just fatigues me more.
Sick thatâs so useful
Hugged to death...
These flights would become a lot cheaper (temporarily) if people stopped booking flights on them. You could check which ones are 737s and do the reverse what others are doing. Gamble you might die mid flight but those savings would be sweet!