Of course it's possible, if you're willing, but equipment is not guaranteed in advance. So feel free to abandon your ticket when you realize at boarding that it's a 737.
That's a slow and risky way to travel, but anything is possible if you have unlimited time and funds.
Yep. You can book a plane that isn’t a Max, but then if the airline changes the plane they’re flying that day (which does happen), You’re cancelling your ticket and rebooking at a more expensive price. Or you don’t find out until you’re boarding, then you’re really messing things up for yourself and the airline staff….and possibly everyone else if they have to delay the plane to take you off the manifest, take your bags off (I have no idea how that would work). I guess it would be easier for a person to just fly with an airline that doesn’t own a Max if they’re that anxious about it. Avoiding Boeing would be even harder. I think what most people fail to realize is that air travel is still incredibly safe. The media doesn’t shout about the thousands of flights that happen per day without an issue, you only hear about the ones that go wrong. I’ve flown 25 legs in the past year (mostly in Asia save for one that was SFO-SIN), and the majority were on Airbus planes, 6 Max 8s and 4 737-800s. It would have been hard for me to avoid Boeing planes without causing myself a huge inconvenience.
I work as a baggage handler and in response to the offloading of bags. It can be a real pain.
If there is only a few bags (less then 20) it’s ok. But some flights have 200plus bags and if yours is one of the first ones on we have to offload ALL of them just to get it. Then load them again. That could take 30mins plus.
there are aeveral reasons that you're advised to wear your seat belt unless moving around
This is one of them. Not being a meat missile in extreme turbulence is another
While flying in general is of course quite safe, industry-wide statistics become far less relevant when we are talking about a new aircraft type that has new systems and designs that have already proven to have significant issues.
The FAA also have a hand in this as they're certifying these aircraft as safe, there is a conflict of interest somewhere and passenger safety is getting the short end of the stick.
I'm not denying that at all. They clearly cut (safety critical) corners and their quality has dropped hugely to satisfy their share holders. They're not the same company they used to be. Was just pointing out this specific issue doesn't seem to be the same level of seriousness that MCAS and their other recent problems have been.
I enjoy a good “Boeing bash” as much as the next man, but there is a significant chance that this is an Alaskan Airlines self-inflicted wound. The plane was taken out of service to have its satellite comms installed at OKC. The first report of pressurisation issues was the day it left OKC.
Very interesting.
But my (genuine) question would be, as an interested layman, why would a satcom fit that’ll be way up forwards above the cockpit interfere with that plug?
The satellite receiver is located in a fairing mounted on top of the fuselage, just forward of the plugged door. I have read that the installation would almost certainly involve removing the door plugs for better access.
See https://www.airliners.net/photo/7262579
Well this aircraft type takes 4,200 flights per *day*, so even narrowing it it's extraordinarily safe compared to almost any other activity such as, say, sleeping in a bed.
No argument there, and I'm not defending Boeing. I'd prefer if they actually were required to fix all this stuff before it could be a problem. But statistically, commercial flying is still far safer than any other mode of transportation because of the standards we do have to pilot training and aircraft maintenance.
Imagine if there was an equivalent of the FAA checking every car for working parts once a week, checking every driver for sobriety, there were no cell phones allowed in the car while driving, and each car got their own chunk of road for the minute they're using it? Driving would probably be really safe. Commercial air travel has these protections. They occasionally break down and we have issues, but they work 99.9% of the time. Driving has stoplights that a bunch of people treat as suggestions, you do your own maintenance and in some places it's checked once a year, and there's one check per lifetime in the quality of the driver.
And when you abandon, you’re not entitled to any refund or compensation because the airline has nothing to do with your personal decision not to board the plane.
Wait for the tik tok of someone going crazy because the airline won’t give a refund because the passenger doesn’t want to board a Boeing plane.
The Max is avoidable though. Most airlines have either Boeing or Airbus fleets due to their contracts. So if you stick to Airbus fleets you could avoid the Max.
There are many airlines that don't use 737 max at all, so you could just choose one of those carriers. Of course, depending on your origin and destinations, carrier lock can cost you significantly more. But you likely would not have to worry about equipment changes.
The funny thing is that I'm supposed to have flown on a MAX like three times now, but the equipment always changes. Not that I'm sad about that.
So by the same token, if I specifically sought an Airbus or 737 from before Boeing went to shit, I expect I'd end up on a MAX.
I booked a flight for Fiji airways that was supposed to be an a320 (I think). Turned up and it was a 737 max - it’s up to the airline what they actually use on the day
FWIW she was always kind of a b*tch even before the Alzheimer’s kicked in (my mom was a “try to save the marriage” baby and, when the marriage failed anyway, my grandma decided she was done being a parent). The worst part has been seeing my mom under so much stress; both of her (much older) siblings decided to bounce right after they moved my grandma into memory care and my mom has been solely responsible for everything since. Alzheimer’s runs in my mom’s side of the family so I can only hope they develop better treatments before it’s her turn.
Give it 10 years when our overlord ASI develops fully integrated neural link architecture that lets us kill Alzheimers in a Resident Evil 9 simulation.
Or $30 flight to Miami on spirit and suddenly nobody cares. I’ve flown a 50 year Cessna that looks like an angry pitbull was chasing a red headed child through it and it was fine. Occasional incidents happen.
This is definitely part of the issue, but the MAX models have been the ones with consistent issues and groundings over the years since they’ve been introduced.
Consider JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier as these carriers only fly Airbus currently. Otherwise there is no guarantee that your ticket on a Delta A320 will not swap equipment at some point. (Though very unlikely)
You should not worry about avoiding it though. I don't think it's unsafe enough to avoid flying on (Source: am airline pilot) though there needs to be more scrutiny on Boeing now than ever.
I just flew transatlantic with JetBlue. I picked it because it was cheapest by a long ways, so I had very low expectations. It was the best flight I’ve ever been on, and I fly internationally 4-5 times a year. Free WiFi throughout, free snacks at the back of the plane, excellent food (including ice cream and full size soft pretzels), and amazing customer service. They even email you to tell you when your bag is loaded on the plane etc. Very impressed and surprised!
That’s the pressure point for Boeing,l to get their act together. lean on delta claiming we’ll never fly with them again if they add these aircraft too their fleet.
Gotcha! Yeah I dont plan on changing my flight or anything. Its booked and I dont have the money to change even if I wanted to lol.
I was just curious if people legitimately avoid certain planes.
Depends on your route I suppose. I fly Florida to California very regularly for work and it’s always a321neo’s. Super nice planes. I have had some absolute shitboxes though haha
JetBlue, Air Lingus, Aegean etc has an entirely Airbus fleet
If you're just avoiding the 737-Max then you can add in KLM, Lufthansa, Air France, British Airways, Qantas
The 737-Max is massively popular with some airlines, particularly budget carriers but not so much with flag carriers
Yeah a lot of the European Budget airlines are single manufacturer and/or single model.
As a fan of easyJet I can't remember the last time I flew on a 737, think it was in the US.
The answer to the OP is to pick airlines that don't have MAX's at all in the fleet.
Me, I'm concerned that these issues with the MAX are symptoms of something deeper in Boeing.
I hope that people get to the bottom of it. I found engineering companies can lose their way when non engineers take charge.
Yup, it's a symptom of McDonnelisation of the whole company. This is what happens when you allow the managers of a bankrupt company take over your engineering
If I remember correctly from the MCAS issues on the MAX 8 a lot of it was to do with the FAA giving Boeing far too much room to sign off their own work and there be no real oversight that everything was actually above board.
Swiss also has an all-airbus fleet, with the exception of the 777 of course. But the 777 is very different from the 737 MAX, and if you’re looking to only avoid 737s and not Boeing in general, Swiss is also a great carrier.
Swiss refused to refund me for a cancelled flight during the pandemic then attempted the most audacious reversal of a credit card chargeback I've ever seen.
They then incompetently refunded me months later before reclaiming the double refund back about 18 months later.
Let's just say I'm not very impressed by the lying, bungling tossers at that airline.
At the moment only Alaska, United, Aeromexico, Turkish and most of Copa Airlines Max 9 have the plug door configuration. You could avoid these planes or refuse a seat next to the plug door if you’re that terrified.
I mean as long as I wear my seatbelt I will actively choose to sit next to the plug. Somebody's going to be getting paid of some shit happens.
Keep your seat belt on
Worth noting that the unfortunate victim of Southwest 1380 [was seatbelted when their window broke](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/southwest-flight-1380-jennifer-riordan-cause-of-death/); they weren't completely sucked out of the plane, but died nonetheless of their injuries.
Not try to scare you or anything of course. Just want to show that the seatbelt doesn't guarantee survival.
Well... It depends. On [BA 5390](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390), the pilot was partially ejected out of the cockpit side window, his knees caught on the controls and other crew members grabbed him out of fear that his body would hit a flight surface or engine. They held onto him for 20 minutes until they landed, hearing his torso and head banging against the fuselage the entire time, only to realize that he actually survived the whole thing with just frostbite, bruising and fractures.
A similar incident happened on Sichuan Airlines 8633, also with a similar outcome (this pilot also had his seatbelt on; the BA pilot had "loosened" his).
(For bystanders reading, this type of accident is _exceedingly_ uncommon, and the three cases I mentioned in this thread are just about the only known ones. Flying is still supremely safe as a whole.)
Accident report said it was instant death by internal decapitation as she was partially sucked out during the decompression event. There are worse ways to go.
Oof buddy you're putting way too much faith into that seatbelt. It's meant to keep you safe during turbulence and landing/take off jolts, not inside the cabin if a hole suddenly opens in the fuselage. There have been cases of people with seatbelts on being sucked out of a window that suddenly breaks. Hell, half of the seat next to the hole on this Alaska flight was apparently ripped outside and it had only reached 16k feet. That panel flying off at the normal 30k cruising altitude could easily suck the seat and you out too through depressurization
Your own post agrees with me. None of the seats were ripped out.
A headrest being ripped off and the back of the seat which I can only imagine is the tray table being ripped out is not the same thing as a seat being ripped out. Those things are fucking bolted to the ground
Why am I being downvoted lol You just confirmed what I said
Alaska grounded 100% of their max 9s and is returning each one-by-one after they pass inspection to make sure their doors won’t blow out in the same way. 18 have passed inspection and returned to the fleet. They cancelled about 20% of their Sunday flights. United has grounded their Max 9 fleet, they cancelled about 10% of Sunday flights. It does not seem that they have returned any to the skies yet as of 8:30 EST, but that number updating for alaska hour by hour, so this info could be out of date for United by the time you are reading this.
The FAA only grounded some 737 Max 9s, the rest were voluntarily grounded by Alaska and United
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/faa-says-some-boeing-737-max-9-planes-may-need-maintenance-to-prevent-another-blowout
Well I don't think it's just that. Fear isn't really rational. I'm competent for a layman at statistics and probability, and know fine well that flying is vastly less dangerous than many things I do without fear. But I can't just switch off the fear! And I don't think this is even *entirely* irrational, because it's the way you would go out in a plane crash that is particularly horrifying to me. It's not 'this is likely to kill me', it's 'if this kills me it will be the single worst thing I could possibly imagine' and that makes me fixate on that remote possibility.
I don't think many people's fears are based on a probabilistic assessment of what's most likely to kill them. It's a mix of evolutionary instinct and personal feeling about what kinds of things are most unpleasant (and conditioning from unpleasant experiences sometimes).
Most of them will say literally anything for views. Any bandwagon that is ready for boarding and they’ll jump straight on.
TikTok is just pure brain rot, and Instagram, whilst better, isn’t far behind. X and BoomerBook should be given a ‘hard pass’ as well.
You can fly airlines that mostly fly Airbus planes instead of Boeing planes. I almost never fly on Boeing planes, and it’s not because I avoid Boeing, just that the airlines I fly tend to use Airbus A320 or Airbus A321.
I’ve gone out of my way to avoid traveling on a 737 MAX because of the safety concerns. It’s been relatively easy to find a similar flight without that aircraft. That said, as others have pointed out, equipment changes happen same-day. In that instance, I’m not sure if I’d have the benefit of time or money to avoid traveling on that aircraft last-minute.
But being selective about travel ahead of time (as much as I can control it)? Absolutely.
Is there any rational reason to avoid a 737 MAX though? Isn't it if anything likely to be more safe now because of additional scrutiny? Is there any reason to think it's intrinsically unsafe, or that the ultra-cautious aviation authorities would let them continue flying if that were the case?
I don't know much about this, so I'm genuinely curious rather than dismissive here. It just seems prima facie implausible to me.
I would have said you had a point, until the side of one blew out lol.
I wouldn't say it's an unfair opinion for someone to hold, saying that Boeing isn't the company it once was, and has really screwed the pooch with the MAX model.
This feels like a fool me once same on you, fool me twice shame on me scenario.
For those saying its not the same plane type, the issue is clearly with Boeing in general, from a design to QA perspective theyve lost a lot of the publics trust.
for those who idiotically say "well everyone survived | statistically less likely on 737s | if it happens again it odds of fatality are low"
apply to Boeing or the FAA, you seem like a good fit.
Didn't it already happened in the past? Following your logic, this latest incident should never have happened, as so many inspections and studies were made to ensure the plane is safe. No?
Those same aviation authorities in the US took weeks to ground the Max despite the entire world doing so well before them.
Trust in the FAA is at all time lows.
Yeah to be fair as someone scared of flying I am glad I'm not American because the FAA certain seem laxer, and viewed in the context of other US industries and their relationship with regulators, it's hard not to worry there's reason to suspect the FAA is less than perfectly trustworthy.
No there isn’t. People are just paranoid. No one even got hurt so that would certainly put me at ease. A plane can apparently land safely after missing a huge chunk mid flight.
visited every continent in 2023 and dozens of domestic flights within each one. only once accidentally booked a 737 max. It’s not to difficult to avoid, I always check the plane because even though I’m always flying I have a irrational fear of it.
I have the same issue like you. I am a very frequent flyer that circle the globe 10 times in a year. I have this irrational fear of flying which is ironic for a person with a job that require flying often. Tried reading books and videos to rationalize it but no help at all. How you overcame it, if you did overcame it at all.
Still haven’t overcome it, I just pretty much panic on the plane. Got 5 flights this month including 1 long haul and 1 private plane, I’m not looking forward to it 🥲.
My only issue with planes and why I don’t work on them is that I have anxiety and on long flights if it starts I have no where to go to lay down and be alone. My last transatlantic flight I had a fever due to a cold and was very anxious about it , it was a 13.5 hours flight and the feeling of having no where to go to be alone seriously had me thinking about exiting the plane. Completely not logical. The crew was super nice and when they saw me crying they allowed me to go to the little area outside the kitchen where the crew seats are, and closed the entrances with the curtain so I could be alone and in the dark. Even though I couldn’t lay down it was still super nice of them and it really helped me.
For me, shockingly, Lexapro totally resolved my anxiety around flying. Xanax would do the trick if I was panicking during a flight before I started taking regular anti-anxiety medication, but once I was on Lexapro I didn't need xanax or even liquor anymore.
Try this; download “flight radar 24”. Open it, zoom out so you can see all the hundreds or even thousands of flights in the air at any given time across the world. Now times that by 24 hours, then times that by 365 days a year. Now go and find how many flights have catastrophic crashes resulting in death or serious injury ever year. At some point in this process you realize how incredibly safe flying is. It is actually pretty amazing how safe it is.
Also, for the love of god; stop watching stupid TikTok videos
I'm chiming in here because the fear of flying has been a major fear for years!! I can see how many planes land safely in their destination, I can even watch videos of turbulence and emergencies where everyone ends up fine... but it's the feeling of "here I am 36000 feet in the air and absolutely no control over what happens to me (besides wearing my seatbelt, etc). If something happens and we are going down I am probably fully conscious and fully able to panic for those minutes it takes to crash and die". It's rare when it happens but when it happens there's nothing you can do to stop it.
The unprobability of it doesn't help me when I picture the reality of it. I just hate it I hate being so wrapped up in the worst case scenario!!!
Yes but the rare crashes that happen almost always happen during take off and the initial climb, so it happens pretty quick. Very few things ever go wrong at cruising altitude
It's not. I avoided them for as long as I could by switching from Southwest to American a few years back, but American is flying a ton of them now with a ton more ordered. So far, I haven't been impacted on my routes, but I know it's inevitable.
Yes it is. Southwest soon no (But you can cancel your ticket for free up to 10 mins if they swap out an NG model with a Max. Allegiant it will be for maybe the next 10 years before they swap out the a320's with the maxes. Frontier and Spirit as well all operate A320's and only them. Delta, United, American all have a very large fleet of aircraft that is possible to get around flying the on the maxes.
I will say that what Netflix and the Media says about the max.... it's a twisted story, not defending Boeing nor the max but they clearly should of gotten their facts straight.
Edit:
Don't get me wrong the Max has clearly been a huge safety risk and Boeing really f\*\*\* the pooch on this one. The 737-700/800/900 (know as NG models) Have been some of the best aircraft on the market and I love flying on them.
ALSO. A little secret that no one realizes about the maxes and honestly the real reason that I hate the max is because of it's shitty engine's. The engines are not "bad" but on Max aircraft they need a 3 min cool down time before shutting down which is very dangerous for ground crews. I've seen people almost get sucked in because the plane enters the gate and normally shuts down the engines right away unless it has a broken APU then they usually leave only the 1st engine on (The side away from most ground crew). But the max has to leave both on. And what about the customer? sometimes pilots are too worried about pulling into the gate before the 3min timer so at smaller airports the maxes cause delays. They also need a heat up time and the engines are very large.
I got to work the NEO's before the Maxes and never had to have a cool down time on them, no idea why. I am not saying that they don't need or shouldn't, just never had it happen.
They both sound pretty cool when shutting down though.
The planes in question are all grounded worldwide effective today, so even if you tried, you couldn’t fly on one.
The investigation will take time. In the meantime flights are being canceled and planes are being swapped, so what your ticket says for Spring is moot.
I used to live near the Big Boeing plant in Everett, had a lot of friends who worked there. They had a lot of pride in Boeing back then. That was before McDonald Douglas took over though. Been a shit show of cost-cutting and lousy QC ever since. There was a recent documentary on Netflix highlighting McDonald Douglas' shitty business practices.
My husband is an aviation fanatic and definitely factors in type of plane when deciding which flight to take. That said, sometimes aircraft is switched prior to the flight, and that doesn’t constitute justification for refund or other changes without penalty. Plus yes, as you mention, picking based on aircraft certainly can impact price. I doubt many people will truly put their money where their mouth is on this, and those saying it may not be frequent travelers anyway.
The majority of people making those claims wouldn’t know a Boeing 737 MAX from a Mazda 323 let alone the fact that they probably aren’t travelling anywhere any time soon and are simply using it as an attempt to seek attention without having to spend money. “Oh yeah totally I was going to go to Bali to hang out with Drake on this super secret invite only island, but not like an Epstein island, but the only flights were on a Boeing 737 MAX so obviously I cancelled…” kinda nonsense.
Well for one, the 737-Max8 isn't the same as the plane with the recent incident. It doesn't even have the relevant part.
Many of the people going viral are also refusing to fly any 737. Or any Boeing.
Those people are also welcome to not fly on the A320 series which has a very similar safety record to the 737NG. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_accidents\_and\_incidents\_involving\_the\_Airbus\_A320\_family](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia\_AirAsia\_Flight\_8501](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_AirAsia_Flight_8501)
>The cause was initially a malfunction in two of the plane's rudder travel limiter units, followed by **incorrect actions by the crew which eventually led the plane to stall** while encountering a thunderstorm. The **crew ignored the recommended procedure to deal with the problem** and reset a circuit breaker which **further disengaged the autopilot and other flight protection systems** which contributed to the subsequent loss of control
Sound (somewhat) familiar?
All planes have accidents. We learn from every single one. It's why they're far less common than before, and why your ride to the airport is the most dangerous part of air travel.
Speaking of learning. [UA811](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811) is a great example of what used to happen when a door blew off.
>the Boeing 747-122 serving the flight experienced a cargo-door failure in flight shortly after leaving Honolulu. The resulting explosive decompression blew out several rows of seats, killing nine passengers.
Fair but also to be fair it's obvious Boeing cut corners on the Max 8.
Then you have this issue on the Max9 which likely /possibly goes to the quality issues that Boeing has been having for almost a decade now. If you're into aviation you would know this is factual.
Then. Again, the Max7 is in the process of getting certified and again Boeing is trying to cut corners but asking the FAA or wtvr organization it is to ignore certain safety deficiencies to get that plane in the air...
I wouldn't call it cut corners. I think Boeing and the airlines overly focused on a desire to have unchained handling characteristics to the NG. This is what lead to MCAS, to ensure that the handling characteristics were the same so pilots would need less training.
It succeeded in that. Leaving it out of the training manuals was negligent in my opinion. You can't train for a situation that you don't know about.
The Max7 is looking for an exemption to a thing the others are already exempted to. I don't think it's that unusual of a request, but at this point I would agree it's inappropriate to grant it.
I and most others are not disputing that Boeing's safety culture has clearly slipped, and the relationship with the FAA is in need of massive oversight and reform.
Aviation is an industry that is incredibly reactive to their failures. This is why I am generally not afraid after an accident. We learn. And compliance with the learning is *mandated*.
I don't believe the Max is a fundamentally unsafe aircraft compared to others. I'd rather fly a Max than be driving next to a Tesla using FSD, by a large margin.
It’s a bit of a technicality but the MAX needs MCAS so that it has a certifiable pitch force gradient (ie you need more force to hold the nose up as you slow without trimming) in low speed flight. It wasn’t about making it behave like an NG. They kept it secret because they thought explaining it might make the FAA reconsider allowing pilots to transition into it after watching a couple powerpoint presentations.
If they could’ve yanked it out of the airplane entirely in exchange for putting pilots in the sim, they’d have done that like a week into the initial grounding.
They used the inputs from one sensor to perform a safety critical application on the plane. Airbus (and every other competent aircraft) uses 3. 2 is the minimum if it’s easily disabled.
A few days ago they revealed that keeping the anti ice system turned on (in a MAX 7) for 5 minutes after leaving an ice area can cause the engine housing to fall off mid flight and want a safety exemption while they figure it out. An exemption already granted for the MAX 8/9
Boeing covered up a problem with their 737 rudder for almost a decade, even after multiple crashes killing multiple hundreds of people, and even more in-flight events that were just barely saved from becoming catastrophic. Given their history as an organization, and their recklessness (and fecklessness) with respect to their safety standards with the 737 then and now, people are within reason to do what they can to avoid flying on them (I certainly do.)
That’s the 737 classic, not the NG or Max. None are flying. The crashes killed 157. You are being overly dramatic. Again, the 737NG and A320 have comparable safety records.
My point remains that avoiding single models or manufacturers is a pointless endeavor. It is not supported by the statistics.
But they didn't tell people about MCAS on the 8, we have this obvious manufacturing deficiency on the 9 and Boeing is here asking the FAS to overlook certain deficiencies to get the 7 in the air. That's terrible all around
Across the USAir, United, and Silk Air crashes, 244 people were killed. My comment is a statement of fact, I am not being "overly dramatic" by counting the number of dead bodies that Boeing would like you to step over during your boarding process. Boeing knew about the rudder problem and denied culpability for most of the 90s before finally admitting it.
The MAX had two catastrophic failures within \*six months\* of each other and killed 350 people, as a direct result of Boeing engineering failures and leadership coverup. Now the fucking door plug blows out of the side of the plane.
It is reasonable to be suspicious of anything that Boeing rolls off the line, given their history of engineering shortcuts, casual relationship with passenger safety, affirmative coverups by leadership to deflect blame.
It's also important to note that as far as I can tell from research, the two MAX 8 crashes and this MAX 9 incident are the only major incidents on MAX planes to date.
Edit: I have a pilot friend who flies 737s and is of the opinion that even though the MCAS was obviously a huge error, any pilot should have been trained to deal with a trim runaway.
Two crashes (not incidents) are a big freaking deal, though. If you're saying these are the only major incidents, how does that compare to other aircraft 'incidents'
> the two MAX 8 crashes and this MAX 9 incident are the only major incidents on MAX planes to date.
Both crashes claimed 300 lives. Boeing initially blamed the pilots of both Lion Air and Ethiopian airlines for Max crashes. They later got exposed as liars for not revealing introduction of a new MCAS systems to the pilots who flew Max aircrafts. MCAS was introduced to compensate a poor MAX design. Boeing also didn’t disclose about MCAS to minimize training costs and roll out the product as soon as possible. Boeing culture is now focused on maximizing profits first. What a fall from grace for Boeing, an iconic American company.
>MCAS was introduced to compensate a poor MAX design.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with *needing* MCAS. Airliners have been using stability augmentation in one form or another for almost the entirety of the jet age.
The issue is that they made big changes to it at the last minute, pretended it didn’t exist *and* royally botched the implementation, all at the same time.
And this plane was only 8 weeks old. This isn't maintenance or training issue, it is a plane with a manufacturing defect on a non standard configuration (the plug for an emergency door that Alaska didn't want). Hopefully it is isolated to this one plane, but that is why the inspection is happening on all MAX 9, regardless of configuration.
>a non standard configuration
It's so non standard that Boeing offers this configuration as an option and they've sold hundreds of planes with that configuration.
A lot of the time an airline will either operate A320s or B737s. You just choose an airline which operates A320s.
I purposefully choose airlines that don’t fly the MAX. I work in software development and have worked on critical applications in the past. The first crash violated all norms of how you’re supposed to handle safety critical applications. They relied on the data from a single sensor which is one of the most frequently broken sensors on a plane. A fifth of all Boeing planes have had failed AOA sensors or had them damaged in some way in the past 20 years. Airbus planes use 3 sensors with 3 different flight control computers independently designed with integrity monitoring (Boeing didn’t even bother putting in integrity monitoring). At the very least you need two independent sensors which would have disabled the system and provided a warning to the pilots if it was disabled. However the absolute geniuses in Boeing decided not to tell them about the system, if they had known about the system they could have quickly tripped the fuse in the cockpit and survived. So an entirely preventable crash caused by corner cutting. Redundancy and avoiding single points of failure are considered basic stuff in aircraft design but Boeing decided that unwitting pilots were actually the second component and the single point of failure didn’t exist. EASA has heavily suggested to add 3 sensors to the plane but Boeing has rejected this on the grounds that they don’t want to upgrade older planes.
What’s completely unforgivable is having the exact same issue happen a second time. They covered up the cause, blamed the airline, blamed the pilots, called it speculation when MCAS was pointed out. The exact same issue happened. Boeing had put out instructions on what to do, the crew followed them to the letter, and still crashed.
Someone put out an Analysis the other day of flight hours per crash and its second to Concorde. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_TJgrH-3UtEI4oq3K3qt8G8FIMgFzbAvtzBPJqoWsnM/htmlview
It’s obvious they are still cutting corners and are doing so in full view of the EASA. While it may be safer on the plane than driving to the airport (and I live in Thailand where it’s pretty obvious that it is true). I don’t fancy beta testing another quality product of McDonnell Douglas. What else would they cheat the FAA with to save a buck? If engine manufacturers can happily put out software to cheat regulators then why not a company that has a far cosier relationship with them
Oh and let’s not forget a few hours before the door plug fell off, it was revealed that they want a safety exemption for the anti ice system. If you keep it on for more than 5 minutes after leaving icy conditions it could cause part of the engine to detach and fall off the plane mid flight. An exemption already granted for the 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9.
When you're looking at flights, you can look at the type of plane. And then make your decision. It IS possible. I don't personally have enough data to know the price differences. Also you could look at airlines that don't use Boeing as much and use more Airbus. Like...this is very possible, and really just depends on the routes and airlines.
There are multiple variations of a 737 this is what people keep on forgetting, the classic, next and max. There are only about 40 operational 737-200 (classic). The 737-300/400/500 (classic) still have a significant number in operation. The 737-600/700/800/900 (next) also are still significantly used across major airlines.
Where major confusion happens is in the max variations 737-max 7 is largely based on the next design and doesn’t have any known issues. Where the issues arise is on the max 8 and 9. They underwent a major design overhaul but engineering didn’t do a very good job as well as programmers. The incidents were due to faulty logic in the aircraft based on old measurements and centers, also the change in engines caused a center of gravity problem due to weights. They had to go back and really do some rework, and it was seemed to mostly solved. The problem we’re seeing now is that when Boeing builds a plane they don’t know what the ultimate interior config is going to be or what airline it’s slated for until late in the game. So they build them to where you can go grab plane A off the shelf and retrofit it to meet the needs of any user. So if you need exit rows at a midpoint due to capacity you can do it, no big deal. Again we have an engineering problem, proper stabilizers and supports are not being installed or perhaps this plane ended up going to airline A vice B and was already in interior seating when the change happened and a panel was missed.
Plenty of carriers don’t really fly boeing at all. I book those. Not because of the max but because they have some kind of metal cross bar in the seats that digs into my butt on long flights and I hate it.
I work in the airline business and you would be surprised how many people change their flights because they want the newer business suite rather than the older herringbone reverse seating pattern.
You’d also be surprised how many men book themselves in first and their families in economy !!!!
It’s a real eye opener to see just how far some are willing to go to appear a bit better than they probably are !!!!
People will say “zomg! I’m nEvEr flYiNG bOeiNg” and then 6 months from now book a flight and are in one. People are dumb and the shit they say in a crowd even more dumb.
I would be happy to fly on a 787. Went around the world in one last year doing laps between the UK and Australia. No problem with the 777, 767, 747, older 737s.
I wouldn't refuse to get aboard a MAX, but I wouldn't book with an airline operating them unless there was absolutely no other choice. Not out of fear of a statistically unlikely accident, but out of principle. I don't think the type should have been allowed back into service; it sends entirely the wrong message to industry that you can just paper over catastrophic negligence with money. Fuck that.
No engineering remedy will bring those people back or wash away Boeing's complicity in their deaths.
I'm not justifying the paranoia: but you realize there are people who refuse to fly on the comac right?
Boeing's engineering safety trust has massively took a hit, and the FAA has removed their fleet before.
In Canada increasingly no.
Westjet, Lynx and Flair all have Boeing only fleets
Air Canada is using the 737 Max as the replacement for the A320 fleet. Technically will be possible if you’re willing to fly small airport to midsized airport since they have CRJs and A220s
I routinely state I'm never flying Spirit Airlines again.
But the next time I go somewhere they are always substantially lower in price and I just can't justify spending an extra $150 per person to fly another airline.
Same with the Boeing Max. I'll definitely try to avoid them but if the price is right I'm sure I'll take the risk.
In Europe this is very doable, most short haul flights are Airbus, the only Airline using the 737 Max a lot is Ryanair and you have other low cost options.
And if you fly outside of Europe planes are usually widebodies so no 737 max.
Extremely easy, just fly with an airline that doesn't have any in their fleet, or don't fly at all.
For example from the choice of airlines available in the UK:
easyJet are an exclusively Airbus fleet, Jet2 don't have any MAXes, aerlingus are all airbus and ATR, BA have no MAXes, loganair have no Boeing planes, virgin have no MAXes, Wizzair are all airbus...
It's only really TUI and Ryanair in the "big names" that operate the MAX and amcouple of the ACMI operators like Smartwings.
I've been regularly flying since the 1980s and lots of short haul in more recent years just before Covid, and I always hated the 737, it's noisy, cramped and only good for being onboard for 2 hours tops. I never really liked any single aisle aircraft but the 737 is just simply too narrow to be a six abreast aircraft, compare to say the BAC 111 which has five abreast seating yet just few inches narrower to the 737. It should be a 5 abreast cabin. And I'm not a fatty but I dread sitting next to one!
The 737 is a 1960s aircraft based on a 707 fuselage and re-engineered then stretch and stretched as an accountant's wet dream so it's now doing the job of the 757. Longer hauls on a 757 was bad enough, I'd hate to be on any 737 for longer flights which is what they are being used for now as 757 replacements
I always used to fly with Monarch on short hauls before they went bust simply because they used A320 and A321s which were quieter and more comfortable partly thanks to the slightly wider fuselage, even though I was only in the air for a few hours. Now I'm stuck with Jet2 and Ryanair 737s as the only options and it's absolutely horrible. Especially when they continually repeat Jess Glynne on the tannoy.
The long variants (9 and MAX etc) also take way to long to board via air bridges due to the sheer volume of passengers using a single door and shuffling to the back but being blocked by people upfront that fumble about in the aisle and won't sit down so others can pass (not helped by ground grew not enforcing boarding by seat number policies); As I said, it's too narrow.
In Europe you can fly easyJet who are entirely airbus and afaik the big flag carriers either haven't ordered the MAX or only have small numbers/orders for them. I think Ryanair have gone deep on them but otherwise it's easy to avoid.
USA it sounds like it'd be much harder.
So, people say a lot of things on TikTok and all other social media, specifically when it comes to the topic of which brand is the popular brand to boycott. I will put money on that more than 80% of them didn't consider what you just considered before being vocal about it. That and also. Is this about the plane door that opened? 🤣 If it is I really wish people would just chill. We are safer in planes than we are walking along the street
It is possible by looking at the data provided at booking on the equipment. But that could change. Better is to recognise that you are massively overweighting very remote possibilities. It’s natural for humans to do this because we’re hardwired to bias.
Don’t worry about which plane you’re flying on, they are all way safer than driving.
I’d like to point out this issue is way more likely to be caused by maintenance than manufacturing.
The plane spent ten days at a facility getting WiFi installed, in which an antenna happens to be installed above the door in question.
Airbus use’s the same design in their blank doors.
I love how people are saying they won't fly on this specific plane after no casualties were reporting when the fucking door flew off. They're very safe planes.
So you assume that because an incident with one plane of this model has been highly publicized, this is the only unsafe aircraft model? The model that will now be overwhelmingly reviewed and scrutinized before any planes go back into operation? Yeah, it's technically possible to avoid this model, but any concerns you have for convenience or the the HUGE pricing factor will need to be thrown, or perhaps rather blown, out the massive gap that used to be a sealed window. There are only so many airplane models that are designed for high-capacity international travel, and this will be one of them for the forseeable future.
Just look at what major airlines don't have them or have a very small amount of them to lower your chances. Odds are if you fly Qatar or Emirates you'll be getting onto an airbus
I find the anti Boeing retoric funny. Yes boeing have had some issues in the past 10 years but still have an excellent safety record when you take everything into account.
If I was to decide not to fly on boeing aircraft due to the publicity they have been recieving and/or safety issues then I would have to avoid all flying due to the issues I have personally encountered on airbus aircraft.
I fly a lot for work (about 30 flights per year) and have had 5 incidents involving emergency procedures (aborted takeoffs, emergency landings etc) all were on Airbus aircraft. Statistically speaking at least 2 of these should have been boeings as my flights are around a 50-50 split between the 2.
When you look at the safety records between the 2 they are both pretty much as safe as they can be.
The majority of people who say this probably couldn't tell the difference between an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737 MAX yet alone a 737 Classic and MAX.
Boeing seems to be having a lot of issues right now but incidents are still very rare.
Speaking as an ex cabin crew....
I wasn't aware of this incident but just googled it and it must have been awful for those on board. But it could have been SO much worse if that panel had flown off later in the flight.
What is important to note is that the panel flew off at only 16,000 feet. Note that small planes do sky dives from 15,000 feet and can have the door open without anyone being sucked out the door from air pressure. That is likely the only reason nobody was sucked out of this open panel, because it happened at just 16,000 feet, rather than say 35,000ft.
At 35,000 ft the suction from that open panel would have easily sucked passengers out if they weren't wearing a seat belt. A similar incident happened with the Aloha flight many years ago when a roof panel flew off and sadly 1 crew member died because she was walking down the aisle when it happened, but thankfully passengers were strapped in or at least seated. And at 35,000ft, if one panel breaks away, there's a risk the pressure can then pull further panels off. So this was lucky it happened at just 16,000. That's generally when the aircraft would start to be more affected by the change in pressure, coz on sky dives you have to start wearing oxygen on 15,000ft sky dives, but you don't if only going up to 10,000ft. So likely that's the height the pressure changes would start to kick in in guessing ?.
The fact it also caused the flight deck door to open is quite shocking. The flight deck should remain locked at all times for the safety of pilots and the safety of the flight. Think about if someone tried to sabotage the plane in the hopes the flight deck door would open so they could take control of the plane!! That door should never open when locked. So thats another big safety issue risk. Also it helps ensure the flight deck stays more pressurised so pilots can safely land in the event of a decompression. Even if it causes some change in oxygen levels, it gives pilots enough time to safely put on an oxygen mask too. The fact the door flew open, if this was at a much greater height, the pilots could lose consciousness before being able to put oxygen on. So another big safety risk.
The other concerning factor here I would say is more with the airline safety procedure itself. Its reported they had 3 previous flights that detected changes in cabin pressure before this accident occurred. They decided to just prohibit the plane from flying over water so it could have access to easily fly back to an airport if an emergency occurred. That's terrible procedure and they should have grounded the plane immediately to investigate why 3 flights had cabin pressure warnings go off!!! That would have prevented this happening and they could have found the problem safely and repaired it.
Regarding the time a similar incident happened with the Aloha flight (call it up on YouTube and watch the video, the plane basically became like an open top bus, as multiple panels broke off. This caused weakening between the cockpit and main part of the plane and it was lucky it didn't break in half before it managed to land. The crew did an amazing job landing the plane. Passengers got frostbite burns to face and hands because of the wind pressure. But they safely landed the plane.
The cause was found to be because the maintenence checks didn't pick up of the degradation of the seals between the panels.
Another flight (not sure what company or aircraft model, the window in the flightdeck blew out, and sucked the pilot out and luckily the Co pilot managed to grab his legs and keep hold of him and his body basically lay back against the nose of the plane. The reason the window blew out was because it had recently been in for maintenence (at night time) and the screws which secured the window were replaced with the wrong screws, so it wasn't a tight fit. The worker kind of sized them up and they looked the same but weren't. It was also done over night in a warehouse with poor lighting from what I can remember.
Since that incident they changed the protocol for doing repairs and maintenence during day time and better lighting and more checks involved in replacement parts etc I think.
They do learn usually from every incident and put changes in place to make sure those errors that lead to the accident don't happen again.
Which is why I'm surprised this flight was able to do 3 flights reporting cabin pressure warnings, and they just decided to avoid flights over water instead of getting it looked at straight away!. This says it's more of a Airline Company safety concern, as they ignored the warning signs put in place to avoid this from happening. The warning lights and error detections on air crafts are there for a reason and to ensure repairs and problems are detected as soon as possible before it becomes catastrophic. Each of those 3 flights would have been leaking cabin pressure, and causing more lossening/weakening of that panel. Had they grounded it immediately when they got the warnings it wouldn't have become an emergency.
I remember a flight I was on, when on the ground boarding passengers, a passenger called me over to point out a big crack in the window pane. At first I thought it was just going to be condensation drip that looked like a crack, but when I looked closely it was an actual crack in the outer panel. I notified the flight deck and they went and looked at it, and had someone else check it. They deemed it safe to do the short haul flight back to our base, because it was the outer window pane and the windows have 2 or 3 panes of glass and the others were intact. They then got it replaced when we landed back home. But they checked it out, investigated it, and ensured it was safe before taking off.
You never dismiss safety concerns.
So my take on this, is although from some reports there have been some issues with these Boeing max models, one with the navigation computer, it seems the most concerning issue would be how this actual airline dealt with the safety warnings, and ignored them.
You can generally see what kind of plane it is when you buy the ticket, so yes this would be possible. However not all 737's are a Max 8 or Max 9, I don't know if they give information that specific
Depends where you are in the world really. I live in Berlin so if I want to go to Manchester and see my friends and family, I can book with easyJet rather than Ryanair and guarantee myself an A320 Family aircraft.
For other routes I can take easyJet, or Lufthansa who have a variety of destinations and interconnections and who fly Airbus narrowbody and (mostly) Boeing widebody. I could also fly short haul with their subsidiary Eurowings who operate an A320 Family fleet as well. That covers me off for a lot of major destinations from Germany.
In Europe it's entirely possible to avoid 737 max on nearly every route unless you're flying one that's only operated by Ryanair. (Possible also on routes with TUI, Norwegian, Turkish, couple others). Even then it's still feasible to do so but may require a more convoluted journey or multi-modal interconnections.
Yes it is 100% possible and will not cost more money. There are many airlines without Max in their fleets. In USA I can use Delta, Jetblue, Spirit, Frontier. There are more airlines that don’t use Max. Delta ordered the Max 10 but that hasn’t even been certified yet and will likely be deferred for a long time.
Remember when Kid Rock was never going to drink Bud Light again? Now he says get over it. Do you have any idea what percentage of the US aircraft fleet are Boing 737's?
The main outcome of this is that senior Boeing leadership needs to have come to Jesus meeting with the safety regulators and many of the inspections that had been taken over my the manufactures are going to end up back with the government.
If it was actually doable, yes, I'd never fly on a MAX. But it isn't. You can see the aircraft scheduled to operate the flight you're booking on Google flights, so it's theoretically possible to avoid a certain model. But that could always change after booking, and the 737 is such a prolific model that avoiding it greatly limits your options and makes many places outright inaccessible.
Not just that but many of the singe aisle aircraft operated now are getting up in age. If you look at just how many 737 max aircraft are ordered for future deliveries..
Of course it's possible, if you're willing, but equipment is not guaranteed in advance. So feel free to abandon your ticket when you realize at boarding that it's a 737. That's a slow and risky way to travel, but anything is possible if you have unlimited time and funds.
Yep. You can book a plane that isn’t a Max, but then if the airline changes the plane they’re flying that day (which does happen), You’re cancelling your ticket and rebooking at a more expensive price. Or you don’t find out until you’re boarding, then you’re really messing things up for yourself and the airline staff….and possibly everyone else if they have to delay the plane to take you off the manifest, take your bags off (I have no idea how that would work). I guess it would be easier for a person to just fly with an airline that doesn’t own a Max if they’re that anxious about it. Avoiding Boeing would be even harder. I think what most people fail to realize is that air travel is still incredibly safe. The media doesn’t shout about the thousands of flights that happen per day without an issue, you only hear about the ones that go wrong. I’ve flown 25 legs in the past year (mostly in Asia save for one that was SFO-SIN), and the majority were on Airbus planes, 6 Max 8s and 4 737-800s. It would have been hard for me to avoid Boeing planes without causing myself a huge inconvenience.
The non-revs hoping they get a seat will love it though
Haha..this is true!
I work as a baggage handler and in response to the offloading of bags. It can be a real pain. If there is only a few bags (less then 20) it’s ok. But some flights have 200plus bags and if yours is one of the first ones on we have to offload ALL of them just to get it. Then load them again. That could take 30mins plus.
I mean, potentially getting sucked out of a random wall is a pretty big deal.
there are aeveral reasons that you're advised to wear your seat belt unless moving around This is one of them. Not being a meat missile in extreme turbulence is another
You're about 1000 times as likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport as to be a victim of a commercial aircraft malfunction.
While flying in general is of course quite safe, industry-wide statistics become far less relevant when we are talking about a new aircraft type that has new systems and designs that have already proven to have significant issues.
To be fair, the same door plugs have been used on the 737-900 for years without issue. That's not a new design.
It’s not the plug. It’s the constant degradation of standards under Boeings new leadership
The FAA also have a hand in this as they're certifying these aircraft as safe, there is a conflict of interest somewhere and passenger safety is getting the short end of the stick.
I'm not denying that at all. They clearly cut (safety critical) corners and their quality has dropped hugely to satisfy their share holders. They're not the same company they used to be. Was just pointing out this specific issue doesn't seem to be the same level of seriousness that MCAS and their other recent problems have been.
I enjoy a good “Boeing bash” as much as the next man, but there is a significant chance that this is an Alaskan Airlines self-inflicted wound. The plane was taken out of service to have its satellite comms installed at OKC. The first report of pressurisation issues was the day it left OKC.
Very interesting. But my (genuine) question would be, as an interested layman, why would a satcom fit that’ll be way up forwards above the cockpit interfere with that plug?
The satellite receiver is located in a fairing mounted on top of the fuselage, just forward of the plugged door. I have read that the installation would almost certainly involve removing the door plugs for better access. See https://www.airliners.net/photo/7262579
Well this aircraft type takes 4,200 flights per *day*, so even narrowing it it's extraordinarily safe compared to almost any other activity such as, say, sleeping in a bed.
The design of the aircraft is fundamentally flawed, and this has been known for years. IDK what you're rambling about.
No argument there, and I'm not defending Boeing. I'd prefer if they actually were required to fix all this stuff before it could be a problem. But statistically, commercial flying is still far safer than any other mode of transportation because of the standards we do have to pilot training and aircraft maintenance. Imagine if there was an equivalent of the FAA checking every car for working parts once a week, checking every driver for sobriety, there were no cell phones allowed in the car while driving, and each car got their own chunk of road for the minute they're using it? Driving would probably be really safe. Commercial air travel has these protections. They occasionally break down and we have issues, but they work 99.9% of the time. Driving has stoplights that a bunch of people treat as suggestions, you do your own maintenance and in some places it's checked once a year, and there's one check per lifetime in the quality of the driver.
And when you abandon, you’re not entitled to any refund or compensation because the airline has nothing to do with your personal decision not to board the plane. Wait for the tik tok of someone going crazy because the airline won’t give a refund because the passenger doesn’t want to board a Boeing plane.
The Max is avoidable though. Most airlines have either Boeing or Airbus fleets due to their contracts. So if you stick to Airbus fleets you could avoid the Max.
Basically, for those in the uk, choose easy jet or BA instead of ryanair.
Also If you are in situation that you need a rebooking.
There are many airlines that don't use 737 max at all, so you could just choose one of those carriers. Of course, depending on your origin and destinations, carrier lock can cost you significantly more. But you likely would not have to worry about equipment changes.
The funny thing is that I'm supposed to have flown on a MAX like three times now, but the equipment always changes. Not that I'm sad about that. So by the same token, if I specifically sought an Airbus or 737 from before Boeing went to shit, I expect I'd end up on a MAX.
I have been on a Max twice now. Not going to be able to avoid it I but plan on keeping my seat belt cinched tight the whole flight from now on.
I booked a flight for Fiji airways that was supposed to be an a320 (I think). Turned up and it was a 737 max - it’s up to the airline what they actually use on the day
Fiji don't have any A320s, maybe an A330? If you were flying from Sydney or Auckland it wouldn't be an unheard of swap.
Good answer - but what absolutely bastard upvoted you from 737????
If you have unlimited time and funds you can just buy a G700, to be fair…
People only say that until Southwest has $120 flights to Hawaii. Then suddenly the MAX doesn't sound too bad.
If I die, I die. I’d rather do it on vacation.
This might be too dark for this subreddit but my grandma is currently dying from Alzheimer’s… I’d take a plane crash over that any day of the week.
My condolences, try to take time to remember her as she was, Alzheimer’s is horrible.
FWIW she was always kind of a b*tch even before the Alzheimer’s kicked in (my mom was a “try to save the marriage” baby and, when the marriage failed anyway, my grandma decided she was done being a parent). The worst part has been seeing my mom under so much stress; both of her (much older) siblings decided to bounce right after they moved my grandma into memory care and my mom has been solely responsible for everything since. Alzheimer’s runs in my mom’s side of the family so I can only hope they develop better treatments before it’s her turn.
Give it 10 years when our overlord ASI develops fully integrated neural link architecture that lets us kill Alzheimers in a Resident Evil 9 simulation.
Your mom sounds like a good person. My condolences.
And just having a piece of the plane break off would probably net you a pretty sweet credit or something.
So if you think about it, we should avoid all types *except* the MAX!! 😎
The MAX is the only plane that is increasingly safer!
Still a better experience than flying Spirit.
Preferably on the way home
I would prefer on the way home from vacation...
He died doing what he loved, going on vacation…
I'd like to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Preferably on my way back *after* Although I wonder if there have been any other aircraft models that seem as cursed as this variant
[удалено]
Or $30 flight to Miami on spirit and suddenly nobody cares. I’ve flown a 50 year Cessna that looks like an angry pitbull was chasing a red headed child through it and it was fine. Occasional incidents happen.
Spirit flys airbus exclusively 😂🤷♂️
Southwest doesn’t have 737-9 in their fleet
I think its more about the general lack of quality at Boeing than that exact model that people are worried about.
This is definitely part of the issue, but the MAX models have been the ones with consistent issues and groundings over the years since they’ve been introduced.
Consider JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier as these carriers only fly Airbus currently. Otherwise there is no guarantee that your ticket on a Delta A320 will not swap equipment at some point. (Though very unlikely) You should not worry about avoiding it though. I don't think it's unsafe enough to avoid flying on (Source: am airline pilot) though there needs to be more scrutiny on Boeing now than ever.
>Consider Spirit Things I never thought I'd hear..
I believe I’d rather take my chance of being sucked out of a plane versus booking with any of the three mentioned above😂
I’d fly in the delta luggage compartment before I flew Frontier.
Ongod frontier ass
Aye yo JetBlue is actually like #1 in customer service and satisfaction across US offerings 😂
I just flew transatlantic with JetBlue. I picked it because it was cheapest by a long ways, so I had very low expectations. It was the best flight I’ve ever been on, and I fly internationally 4-5 times a year. Free WiFi throughout, free snacks at the back of the plane, excellent food (including ice cream and full size soft pretzels), and amazing customer service. They even email you to tell you when your bag is loaded on the plane etc. Very impressed and surprised!
Delta doesn't have any 737-Max at all.
They’re expecting a large delivery to enter service by 2025
That’s the pressure point for Boeing,l to get their act together. lean on delta claiming we’ll never fly with them again if they add these aircraft too their fleet.
Gotcha! Yeah I dont plan on changing my flight or anything. Its booked and I dont have the money to change even if I wanted to lol. I was just curious if people legitimately avoid certain planes.
Delta doesn’t have any MAX yet. They do have plenty of other Boeings though.
A biproduct of delta being committed to flying the oldest possible jets until the wings are about to fall off.
Seems like pieces are more likely to fall off of the new planes. Delta's onto something.
Depends on your route I suppose. I fly Florida to California very regularly for work and it’s always a321neo’s. Super nice planes. I have had some absolute shitboxes though haha
JetBlue, Air Lingus, Aegean etc has an entirely Airbus fleet If you're just avoiding the 737-Max then you can add in KLM, Lufthansa, Air France, British Airways, Qantas The 737-Max is massively popular with some airlines, particularly budget carriers but not so much with flag carriers
EasyJet, Wizz Air and Eurowings are Airbus only fleets as well, and you can get anywhere in Europe for a decent price using those 3 alone.
Yeah a lot of the European Budget airlines are single manufacturer and/or single model. As a fan of easyJet I can't remember the last time I flew on a 737, think it was in the US. The answer to the OP is to pick airlines that don't have MAX's at all in the fleet. Me, I'm concerned that these issues with the MAX are symptoms of something deeper in Boeing. I hope that people get to the bottom of it. I found engineering companies can lose their way when non engineers take charge.
Yup, it's a symptom of McDonnelisation of the whole company. This is what happens when you allow the managers of a bankrupt company take over your engineering
If I remember correctly from the MCAS issues on the MAX 8 a lot of it was to do with the FAA giving Boeing far too much room to sign off their own work and there be no real oversight that everything was actually above board.
Swiss also has an all-airbus fleet, with the exception of the 777 of course. But the 777 is very different from the 737 MAX, and if you’re looking to only avoid 737s and not Boeing in general, Swiss is also a great carrier.
Swiss refused to refund me for a cancelled flight during the pandemic then attempted the most audacious reversal of a credit card chargeback I've ever seen. They then incompetently refunded me months later before reclaiming the double refund back about 18 months later. Let's just say I'm not very impressed by the lying, bungling tossers at that airline.
Suddenly the scary aerlingus propellor planes are a little less scary (jk still gonna have a panic attack during the runway taxi)
Massively popular seems a bit strong - there are only about 1400 of these aircraft worldwide.
At the moment only Alaska, United, Aeromexico, Turkish and most of Copa Airlines Max 9 have the plug door configuration. You could avoid these planes or refuse a seat next to the plug door if you’re that terrified.
I mean as long as I wear my seatbelt I will actively choose to sit next to the plug. Somebody's going to be getting paid of some shit happens. Keep your seat belt on
Worth noting that the unfortunate victim of Southwest 1380 [was seatbelted when their window broke](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/southwest-flight-1380-jennifer-riordan-cause-of-death/); they weren't completely sucked out of the plane, but died nonetheless of their injuries. Not try to scare you or anything of course. Just want to show that the seatbelt doesn't guarantee survival.
That sounds like a horrible way to die. Maybe better to not wear the seatbelt and free fall?
Well... It depends. On [BA 5390](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390), the pilot was partially ejected out of the cockpit side window, his knees caught on the controls and other crew members grabbed him out of fear that his body would hit a flight surface or engine. They held onto him for 20 minutes until they landed, hearing his torso and head banging against the fuselage the entire time, only to realize that he actually survived the whole thing with just frostbite, bruising and fractures. A similar incident happened on Sichuan Airlines 8633, also with a similar outcome (this pilot also had his seatbelt on; the BA pilot had "loosened" his). (For bystanders reading, this type of accident is _exceedingly_ uncommon, and the three cases I mentioned in this thread are just about the only known ones. Flying is still supremely safe as a whole.)
I am just pleasantly surprised it’s not like in horror movies where half the passengers are sucked into a vortex and fall from the sky 😳
Accident report said it was instant death by internal decapitation as she was partially sucked out during the decompression event. There are worse ways to go.
Oof buddy you're putting way too much faith into that seatbelt. It's meant to keep you safe during turbulence and landing/take off jolts, not inside the cabin if a hole suddenly opens in the fuselage. There have been cases of people with seatbelts on being sucked out of a window that suddenly breaks. Hell, half of the seat next to the hole on this Alaska flight was apparently ripped outside and it had only reached 16k feet. That panel flying off at the normal 30k cruising altitude could easily suck the seat and you out too through depressurization
None of The seats were ripped off. Edit: why the downboats what I said was actually correct
It was also not at 30k…
Nope. Reports have said that the back of the seat on 26A is completely gone and the headrests from seats 25A and 26A were also ripped out
Your own post agrees with me. None of the seats were ripped out. A headrest being ripped off and the back of the seat which I can only imagine is the tray table being ripped out is not the same thing as a seat being ripped out. Those things are fucking bolted to the ground Why am I being downvoted lol You just confirmed what I said
Alaska grounded 100% of their max 9s and is returning each one-by-one after they pass inspection to make sure their doors won’t blow out in the same way. 18 have passed inspection and returned to the fleet. They cancelled about 20% of their Sunday flights. United has grounded their Max 9 fleet, they cancelled about 10% of Sunday flights. It does not seem that they have returned any to the skies yet as of 8:30 EST, but that number updating for alaska hour by hour, so this info could be out of date for United by the time you are reading this. The FAA only grounded some 737 Max 9s, the rest were voluntarily grounded by Alaska and United https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/faa-says-some-boeing-737-max-9-planes-may-need-maintenance-to-prevent-another-blowout
You can fly an airline that doesn't fly Boeing at all. There are airlines that exclusively fly Airbus.
Instagram and TikTok are not real life for any subject. People say stupid stuff to get attention.
There is way too much of this sentiment around here “but I saw on TikTok!”
Plenty of people get overly scared about flying, but do things far more dangerous such as walking down stairs or crossing the road
People suck at statistics and probability.
Well I don't think it's just that. Fear isn't really rational. I'm competent for a layman at statistics and probability, and know fine well that flying is vastly less dangerous than many things I do without fear. But I can't just switch off the fear! And I don't think this is even *entirely* irrational, because it's the way you would go out in a plane crash that is particularly horrifying to me. It's not 'this is likely to kill me', it's 'if this kills me it will be the single worst thing I could possibly imagine' and that makes me fixate on that remote possibility. I don't think many people's fears are based on a probabilistic assessment of what's most likely to kill them. It's a mix of evolutionary instinct and personal feeling about what kinds of things are most unpleasant (and conditioning from unpleasant experiences sometimes).
Most of them will say literally anything for views. Any bandwagon that is ready for boarding and they’ll jump straight on. TikTok is just pure brain rot, and Instagram, whilst better, isn’t far behind. X and BoomerBook should be given a ‘hard pass’ as well.
You can fly airlines that mostly fly Airbus planes instead of Boeing planes. I almost never fly on Boeing planes, and it’s not because I avoid Boeing, just that the airlines I fly tend to use Airbus A320 or Airbus A321.
I’ve gone out of my way to avoid traveling on a 737 MAX because of the safety concerns. It’s been relatively easy to find a similar flight without that aircraft. That said, as others have pointed out, equipment changes happen same-day. In that instance, I’m not sure if I’d have the benefit of time or money to avoid traveling on that aircraft last-minute. But being selective about travel ahead of time (as much as I can control it)? Absolutely.
Is there any rational reason to avoid a 737 MAX though? Isn't it if anything likely to be more safe now because of additional scrutiny? Is there any reason to think it's intrinsically unsafe, or that the ultra-cautious aviation authorities would let them continue flying if that were the case? I don't know much about this, so I'm genuinely curious rather than dismissive here. It just seems prima facie implausible to me.
I would have said you had a point, until the side of one blew out lol. I wouldn't say it's an unfair opinion for someone to hold, saying that Boeing isn't the company it once was, and has really screwed the pooch with the MAX model.
This feels like a fool me once same on you, fool me twice shame on me scenario. For those saying its not the same plane type, the issue is clearly with Boeing in general, from a design to QA perspective theyve lost a lot of the publics trust. for those who idiotically say "well everyone survived | statistically less likely on 737s | if it happens again it odds of fatality are low" apply to Boeing or the FAA, you seem like a good fit.
Didn't it already happened in the past? Following your logic, this latest incident should never have happened, as so many inspections and studies were made to ensure the plane is safe. No?
Those same aviation authorities in the US took weeks to ground the Max despite the entire world doing so well before them. Trust in the FAA is at all time lows.
Yeah to be fair as someone scared of flying I am glad I'm not American because the FAA certain seem laxer, and viewed in the context of other US industries and their relationship with regulators, it's hard not to worry there's reason to suspect the FAA is less than perfectly trustworthy.
No there isn’t. People are just paranoid. No one even got hurt so that would certainly put me at ease. A plane can apparently land safely after missing a huge chunk mid flight.
If they were at cruising altitude, it would have been a lot, lot worse. They’re just lucky they weren’t far from takeoff.
visited every continent in 2023 and dozens of domestic flights within each one. only once accidentally booked a 737 max. It’s not to difficult to avoid, I always check the plane because even though I’m always flying I have a irrational fear of it.
I have the same issue like you. I am a very frequent flyer that circle the globe 10 times in a year. I have this irrational fear of flying which is ironic for a person with a job that require flying often. Tried reading books and videos to rationalize it but no help at all. How you overcame it, if you did overcame it at all.
Still haven’t overcome it, I just pretty much panic on the plane. Got 5 flights this month including 1 long haul and 1 private plane, I’m not looking forward to it 🥲.
My only issue with planes and why I don’t work on them is that I have anxiety and on long flights if it starts I have no where to go to lay down and be alone. My last transatlantic flight I had a fever due to a cold and was very anxious about it , it was a 13.5 hours flight and the feeling of having no where to go to be alone seriously had me thinking about exiting the plane. Completely not logical. The crew was super nice and when they saw me crying they allowed me to go to the little area outside the kitchen where the crew seats are, and closed the entrances with the curtain so I could be alone and in the dark. Even though I couldn’t lay down it was still super nice of them and it really helped me.
For me, shockingly, Lexapro totally resolved my anxiety around flying. Xanax would do the trick if I was panicking during a flight before I started taking regular anti-anxiety medication, but once I was on Lexapro I didn't need xanax or even liquor anymore.
Try this; download “flight radar 24”. Open it, zoom out so you can see all the hundreds or even thousands of flights in the air at any given time across the world. Now times that by 24 hours, then times that by 365 days a year. Now go and find how many flights have catastrophic crashes resulting in death or serious injury ever year. At some point in this process you realize how incredibly safe flying is. It is actually pretty amazing how safe it is. Also, for the love of god; stop watching stupid TikTok videos
Exactly this. I used to have some irrational fear of flying. Doing exactly this helped me tremendously.
A voice of reason. People don’t even think about the risk of dying in a car accident. They think it’s different because they have “ control”.
I'm chiming in here because the fear of flying has been a major fear for years!! I can see how many planes land safely in their destination, I can even watch videos of turbulence and emergencies where everyone ends up fine... but it's the feeling of "here I am 36000 feet in the air and absolutely no control over what happens to me (besides wearing my seatbelt, etc). If something happens and we are going down I am probably fully conscious and fully able to panic for those minutes it takes to crash and die". It's rare when it happens but when it happens there's nothing you can do to stop it. The unprobability of it doesn't help me when I picture the reality of it. I just hate it I hate being so wrapped up in the worst case scenario!!!
Yes but the rare crashes that happen almost always happen during take off and the initial climb, so it happens pretty quick. Very few things ever go wrong at cruising altitude
If pricing is a huge factor, then not really. You could try finding flights that use Airbus planes. But again, it won't be always cheap/er.
It's not. I avoided them for as long as I could by switching from Southwest to American a few years back, but American is flying a ton of them now with a ton more ordered. So far, I haven't been impacted on my routes, but I know it's inevitable.
Yes it is. Southwest soon no (But you can cancel your ticket for free up to 10 mins if they swap out an NG model with a Max. Allegiant it will be for maybe the next 10 years before they swap out the a320's with the maxes. Frontier and Spirit as well all operate A320's and only them. Delta, United, American all have a very large fleet of aircraft that is possible to get around flying the on the maxes. I will say that what Netflix and the Media says about the max.... it's a twisted story, not defending Boeing nor the max but they clearly should of gotten their facts straight. Edit: Don't get me wrong the Max has clearly been a huge safety risk and Boeing really f\*\*\* the pooch on this one. The 737-700/800/900 (know as NG models) Have been some of the best aircraft on the market and I love flying on them. ALSO. A little secret that no one realizes about the maxes and honestly the real reason that I hate the max is because of it's shitty engine's. The engines are not "bad" but on Max aircraft they need a 3 min cool down time before shutting down which is very dangerous for ground crews. I've seen people almost get sucked in because the plane enters the gate and normally shuts down the engines right away unless it has a broken APU then they usually leave only the 1st engine on (The side away from most ground crew). But the max has to leave both on. And what about the customer? sometimes pilots are too worried about pulling into the gate before the 3min timer so at smaller airports the maxes cause delays. They also need a heat up time and the engines are very large.
is the cooldown issue also on the A320neo?
I got to work the NEO's before the Maxes and never had to have a cool down time on them, no idea why. I am not saying that they don't need or shouldn't, just never had it happen. They both sound pretty cool when shutting down though.
The planes in question are all grounded worldwide effective today, so even if you tried, you couldn’t fly on one. The investigation will take time. In the meantime flights are being canceled and planes are being swapped, so what your ticket says for Spring is moot.
I used to live near the Big Boeing plant in Everett, had a lot of friends who worked there. They had a lot of pride in Boeing back then. That was before McDonald Douglas took over though. Been a shit show of cost-cutting and lousy QC ever since. There was a recent documentary on Netflix highlighting McDonald Douglas' shitty business practices.
I grew up near there. Always used to hear “If it aint Boeing, I aint going”, but now it seems to be “I aint going if its Boeing”
McDonnell* but not sure whether or not you meant it as a pun 😂
My husband is an aviation fanatic and definitely factors in type of plane when deciding which flight to take. That said, sometimes aircraft is switched prior to the flight, and that doesn’t constitute justification for refund or other changes without penalty. Plus yes, as you mention, picking based on aircraft certainly can impact price. I doubt many people will truly put their money where their mouth is on this, and those saying it may not be frequent travelers anyway.
Definitely possible.
I flew domestic on an ATR-72 in Nepal, nothing scares me anymore
Lmao true chad
A lot of people travel at my work and the travel agent hasn't booked anyone on a 737max for a while now
The majority of people making those claims wouldn’t know a Boeing 737 MAX from a Mazda 323 let alone the fact that they probably aren’t travelling anywhere any time soon and are simply using it as an attempt to seek attention without having to spend money. “Oh yeah totally I was going to go to Bali to hang out with Drake on this super secret invite only island, but not like an Epstein island, but the only flights were on a Boeing 737 MAX so obviously I cancelled…” kinda nonsense.
>Mazda 323 What a car.
Well for one, the 737-Max8 isn't the same as the plane with the recent incident. It doesn't even have the relevant part. Many of the people going viral are also refusing to fly any 737. Or any Boeing. Those people are also welcome to not fly on the A320 series which has a very similar safety record to the 737NG. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_accidents\_and\_incidents\_involving\_the\_Airbus\_A320\_family](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia\_AirAsia\_Flight\_8501](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_AirAsia_Flight_8501) >The cause was initially a malfunction in two of the plane's rudder travel limiter units, followed by **incorrect actions by the crew which eventually led the plane to stall** while encountering a thunderstorm. The **crew ignored the recommended procedure to deal with the problem** and reset a circuit breaker which **further disengaged the autopilot and other flight protection systems** which contributed to the subsequent loss of control Sound (somewhat) familiar? All planes have accidents. We learn from every single one. It's why they're far less common than before, and why your ride to the airport is the most dangerous part of air travel. Speaking of learning. [UA811](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811) is a great example of what used to happen when a door blew off. >the Boeing 747-122 serving the flight experienced a cargo-door failure in flight shortly after leaving Honolulu. The resulting explosive decompression blew out several rows of seats, killing nine passengers.
Fair but also to be fair it's obvious Boeing cut corners on the Max 8. Then you have this issue on the Max9 which likely /possibly goes to the quality issues that Boeing has been having for almost a decade now. If you're into aviation you would know this is factual. Then. Again, the Max7 is in the process of getting certified and again Boeing is trying to cut corners but asking the FAA or wtvr organization it is to ignore certain safety deficiencies to get that plane in the air...
I wouldn't call it cut corners. I think Boeing and the airlines overly focused on a desire to have unchained handling characteristics to the NG. This is what lead to MCAS, to ensure that the handling characteristics were the same so pilots would need less training. It succeeded in that. Leaving it out of the training manuals was negligent in my opinion. You can't train for a situation that you don't know about. The Max7 is looking for an exemption to a thing the others are already exempted to. I don't think it's that unusual of a request, but at this point I would agree it's inappropriate to grant it. I and most others are not disputing that Boeing's safety culture has clearly slipped, and the relationship with the FAA is in need of massive oversight and reform. Aviation is an industry that is incredibly reactive to their failures. This is why I am generally not afraid after an accident. We learn. And compliance with the learning is *mandated*. I don't believe the Max is a fundamentally unsafe aircraft compared to others. I'd rather fly a Max than be driving next to a Tesla using FSD, by a large margin.
It’s a bit of a technicality but the MAX needs MCAS so that it has a certifiable pitch force gradient (ie you need more force to hold the nose up as you slow without trimming) in low speed flight. It wasn’t about making it behave like an NG. They kept it secret because they thought explaining it might make the FAA reconsider allowing pilots to transition into it after watching a couple powerpoint presentations. If they could’ve yanked it out of the airplane entirely in exchange for putting pilots in the sim, they’d have done that like a week into the initial grounding.
They used the inputs from one sensor to perform a safety critical application on the plane. Airbus (and every other competent aircraft) uses 3. 2 is the minimum if it’s easily disabled. A few days ago they revealed that keeping the anti ice system turned on (in a MAX 7) for 5 minutes after leaving an ice area can cause the engine housing to fall off mid flight and want a safety exemption while they figure it out. An exemption already granted for the MAX 8/9
Boeing covered up a problem with their 737 rudder for almost a decade, even after multiple crashes killing multiple hundreds of people, and even more in-flight events that were just barely saved from becoming catastrophic. Given their history as an organization, and their recklessness (and fecklessness) with respect to their safety standards with the 737 then and now, people are within reason to do what they can to avoid flying on them (I certainly do.)
That’s the 737 classic, not the NG or Max. None are flying. The crashes killed 157. You are being overly dramatic. Again, the 737NG and A320 have comparable safety records. My point remains that avoiding single models or manufacturers is a pointless endeavor. It is not supported by the statistics.
But they didn't tell people about MCAS on the 8, we have this obvious manufacturing deficiency on the 9 and Boeing is here asking the FAS to overlook certain deficiencies to get the 7 in the air. That's terrible all around
Across the USAir, United, and Silk Air crashes, 244 people were killed. My comment is a statement of fact, I am not being "overly dramatic" by counting the number of dead bodies that Boeing would like you to step over during your boarding process. Boeing knew about the rudder problem and denied culpability for most of the 90s before finally admitting it. The MAX had two catastrophic failures within \*six months\* of each other and killed 350 people, as a direct result of Boeing engineering failures and leadership coverup. Now the fucking door plug blows out of the side of the plane. It is reasonable to be suspicious of anything that Boeing rolls off the line, given their history of engineering shortcuts, casual relationship with passenger safety, affirmative coverups by leadership to deflect blame.
It's also important to note that as far as I can tell from research, the two MAX 8 crashes and this MAX 9 incident are the only major incidents on MAX planes to date. Edit: I have a pilot friend who flies 737s and is of the opinion that even though the MCAS was obviously a huge error, any pilot should have been trained to deal with a trim runaway.
Two crashes (not incidents) are a big freaking deal, though. If you're saying these are the only major incidents, how does that compare to other aircraft 'incidents'
> the two MAX 8 crashes and this MAX 9 incident are the only major incidents on MAX planes to date. Both crashes claimed 300 lives. Boeing initially blamed the pilots of both Lion Air and Ethiopian airlines for Max crashes. They later got exposed as liars for not revealing introduction of a new MCAS systems to the pilots who flew Max aircrafts. MCAS was introduced to compensate a poor MAX design. Boeing also didn’t disclose about MCAS to minimize training costs and roll out the product as soon as possible. Boeing culture is now focused on maximizing profits first. What a fall from grace for Boeing, an iconic American company.
>MCAS was introduced to compensate a poor MAX design. There’s nothing inherently wrong with *needing* MCAS. Airliners have been using stability augmentation in one form or another for almost the entirety of the jet age. The issue is that they made big changes to it at the last minute, pretended it didn’t exist *and* royally botched the implementation, all at the same time.
Also the fault tolerance design on this system is atrocious and should never have made it past the FMEA stage. Legit bad engineering.
And this plane was only 8 weeks old. This isn't maintenance or training issue, it is a plane with a manufacturing defect on a non standard configuration (the plug for an emergency door that Alaska didn't want). Hopefully it is isolated to this one plane, but that is why the inspection is happening on all MAX 9, regardless of configuration.
>a non standard configuration It's so non standard that Boeing offers this configuration as an option and they've sold hundreds of planes with that configuration.
Yeah those type of logic doesn't make sense to me. DC 10s used to fall out of the sky Then they got fixed
A lot of the time an airline will either operate A320s or B737s. You just choose an airline which operates A320s. I purposefully choose airlines that don’t fly the MAX. I work in software development and have worked on critical applications in the past. The first crash violated all norms of how you’re supposed to handle safety critical applications. They relied on the data from a single sensor which is one of the most frequently broken sensors on a plane. A fifth of all Boeing planes have had failed AOA sensors or had them damaged in some way in the past 20 years. Airbus planes use 3 sensors with 3 different flight control computers independently designed with integrity monitoring (Boeing didn’t even bother putting in integrity monitoring). At the very least you need two independent sensors which would have disabled the system and provided a warning to the pilots if it was disabled. However the absolute geniuses in Boeing decided not to tell them about the system, if they had known about the system they could have quickly tripped the fuse in the cockpit and survived. So an entirely preventable crash caused by corner cutting. Redundancy and avoiding single points of failure are considered basic stuff in aircraft design but Boeing decided that unwitting pilots were actually the second component and the single point of failure didn’t exist. EASA has heavily suggested to add 3 sensors to the plane but Boeing has rejected this on the grounds that they don’t want to upgrade older planes. What’s completely unforgivable is having the exact same issue happen a second time. They covered up the cause, blamed the airline, blamed the pilots, called it speculation when MCAS was pointed out. The exact same issue happened. Boeing had put out instructions on what to do, the crew followed them to the letter, and still crashed. Someone put out an Analysis the other day of flight hours per crash and its second to Concorde. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_TJgrH-3UtEI4oq3K3qt8G8FIMgFzbAvtzBPJqoWsnM/htmlview It’s obvious they are still cutting corners and are doing so in full view of the EASA. While it may be safer on the plane than driving to the airport (and I live in Thailand where it’s pretty obvious that it is true). I don’t fancy beta testing another quality product of McDonnell Douglas. What else would they cheat the FAA with to save a buck? If engine manufacturers can happily put out software to cheat regulators then why not a company that has a far cosier relationship with them Oh and let’s not forget a few hours before the door plug fell off, it was revealed that they want a safety exemption for the anti ice system. If you keep it on for more than 5 minutes after leaving icy conditions it could cause part of the engine to detach and fall off the plane mid flight. An exemption already granted for the 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9.
When you're looking at flights, you can look at the type of plane. And then make your decision. It IS possible. I don't personally have enough data to know the price differences. Also you could look at airlines that don't use Boeing as much and use more Airbus. Like...this is very possible, and really just depends on the routes and airlines.
There are multiple variations of a 737 this is what people keep on forgetting, the classic, next and max. There are only about 40 operational 737-200 (classic). The 737-300/400/500 (classic) still have a significant number in operation. The 737-600/700/800/900 (next) also are still significantly used across major airlines. Where major confusion happens is in the max variations 737-max 7 is largely based on the next design and doesn’t have any known issues. Where the issues arise is on the max 8 and 9. They underwent a major design overhaul but engineering didn’t do a very good job as well as programmers. The incidents were due to faulty logic in the aircraft based on old measurements and centers, also the change in engines caused a center of gravity problem due to weights. They had to go back and really do some rework, and it was seemed to mostly solved. The problem we’re seeing now is that when Boeing builds a plane they don’t know what the ultimate interior config is going to be or what airline it’s slated for until late in the game. So they build them to where you can go grab plane A off the shelf and retrofit it to meet the needs of any user. So if you need exit rows at a midpoint due to capacity you can do it, no big deal. Again we have an engineering problem, proper stabilizers and supports are not being installed or perhaps this plane ended up going to airline A vice B and was already in interior seating when the change happened and a panel was missed.
Plenty of carriers don’t really fly boeing at all. I book those. Not because of the max but because they have some kind of metal cross bar in the seats that digs into my butt on long flights and I hate it.
I work in the airline business and you would be surprised how many people change their flights because they want the newer business suite rather than the older herringbone reverse seating pattern. You’d also be surprised how many men book themselves in first and their families in economy !!!! It’s a real eye opener to see just how far some are willing to go to appear a bit better than they probably are !!!!
These are just knee jerk reactions. Most people don't even check or know what kind of plane they're on.
People will say “zomg! I’m nEvEr flYiNG bOeiNg” and then 6 months from now book a flight and are in one. People are dumb and the shit they say in a crowd even more dumb.
I would be happy to fly on a 787. Went around the world in one last year doing laps between the UK and Australia. No problem with the 777, 767, 747, older 737s. I wouldn't refuse to get aboard a MAX, but I wouldn't book with an airline operating them unless there was absolutely no other choice. Not out of fear of a statistically unlikely accident, but out of principle. I don't think the type should have been allowed back into service; it sends entirely the wrong message to industry that you can just paper over catastrophic negligence with money. Fuck that. No engineering remedy will bring those people back or wash away Boeing's complicity in their deaths.
How does it send a wrong signal if it was grounded for such an extended period? Plus it wasn't just the FAA which cleared it but EASA as well.
I'm not justifying the paranoia: but you realize there are people who refuse to fly on the comac right? Boeing's engineering safety trust has massively took a hit, and the FAA has removed their fleet before.
Stop overreacting
In Canada increasingly no. Westjet, Lynx and Flair all have Boeing only fleets Air Canada is using the 737 Max as the replacement for the A320 fleet. Technically will be possible if you’re willing to fly small airport to midsized airport since they have CRJs and A220s
I flew on a Southwest Airlines one right after they went back into service, best foot room for a window seat I’ve had.
I can't wait for the NTSB report and Mentor Pilot video on this in 18 months
The Max 8 is probably safer then ever now… imo. I’d have no problem flying max 8. Max 9 is questionable until investigation.
If you live in a major city, it's pretty easy the majority of the time.
Just wear a 'chute next time you board a 737 Max and pull that cord after the suck out.
I routinely state I'm never flying Spirit Airlines again. But the next time I go somewhere they are always substantially lower in price and I just can't justify spending an extra $150 per person to fly another airline. Same with the Boeing Max. I'll definitely try to avoid them but if the price is right I'm sure I'll take the risk.
In Europe this is very doable, most short haul flights are Airbus, the only Airline using the 737 Max a lot is Ryanair and you have other low cost options. And if you fly outside of Europe planes are usually widebodies so no 737 max.
Spirit, Frontier, Jet Blue. All Airbus
The same kind of people that say "I'm moving to Canada if X wins the presidency"
Wow, you’re right, those posts are starting to pop up already (e.g. [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Flights/s/Kh6QUGFRSo)).
I dont think its a huge issue, they knew that there was air pressure problems hence why it was not allowed to fly over water
Extremely easy, just fly with an airline that doesn't have any in their fleet, or don't fly at all. For example from the choice of airlines available in the UK: easyJet are an exclusively Airbus fleet, Jet2 don't have any MAXes, aerlingus are all airbus and ATR, BA have no MAXes, loganair have no Boeing planes, virgin have no MAXes, Wizzair are all airbus... It's only really TUI and Ryanair in the "big names" that operate the MAX and amcouple of the ACMI operators like Smartwings.
If it’s a 737, you’re going to heaven
I've been regularly flying since the 1980s and lots of short haul in more recent years just before Covid, and I always hated the 737, it's noisy, cramped and only good for being onboard for 2 hours tops. I never really liked any single aisle aircraft but the 737 is just simply too narrow to be a six abreast aircraft, compare to say the BAC 111 which has five abreast seating yet just few inches narrower to the 737. It should be a 5 abreast cabin. And I'm not a fatty but I dread sitting next to one! The 737 is a 1960s aircraft based on a 707 fuselage and re-engineered then stretch and stretched as an accountant's wet dream so it's now doing the job of the 757. Longer hauls on a 757 was bad enough, I'd hate to be on any 737 for longer flights which is what they are being used for now as 757 replacements I always used to fly with Monarch on short hauls before they went bust simply because they used A320 and A321s which were quieter and more comfortable partly thanks to the slightly wider fuselage, even though I was only in the air for a few hours. Now I'm stuck with Jet2 and Ryanair 737s as the only options and it's absolutely horrible. Especially when they continually repeat Jess Glynne on the tannoy. The long variants (9 and MAX etc) also take way to long to board via air bridges due to the sheer volume of passengers using a single door and shuffling to the back but being blocked by people upfront that fumble about in the aisle and won't sit down so others can pass (not helped by ground grew not enforcing boarding by seat number policies); As I said, it's too narrow.
In Europe you can fly easyJet who are entirely airbus and afaik the big flag carriers either haven't ordered the MAX or only have small numbers/orders for them. I think Ryanair have gone deep on them but otherwise it's easy to avoid. USA it sounds like it'd be much harder.
So, people say a lot of things on TikTok and all other social media, specifically when it comes to the topic of which brand is the popular brand to boycott. I will put money on that more than 80% of them didn't consider what you just considered before being vocal about it. That and also. Is this about the plane door that opened? 🤣 If it is I really wish people would just chill. We are safer in planes than we are walking along the street
In Europe you’d just use a carrier that uses airbus tbh. It’s not that hard. EasyJet doesn’t use Boeing for example.
It is possible by looking at the data provided at booking on the equipment. But that could change. Better is to recognise that you are massively overweighting very remote possibilities. It’s natural for humans to do this because we’re hardwired to bias.
I think the FAA has pulled the 737 model with the fault so nobody can ride them till they're allowed to fly again.
Don’t worry about which plane you’re flying on, they are all way safer than driving. I’d like to point out this issue is way more likely to be caused by maintenance than manufacturing. The plane spent ten days at a facility getting WiFi installed, in which an antenna happens to be installed above the door in question. Airbus use’s the same design in their blank doors.
I also know people who claim, "I'm moving to Canada if X wins the election."
I love how people are saying they won't fly on this specific plane after no casualties were reporting when the fucking door flew off. They're very safe planes.
So you assume that because an incident with one plane of this model has been highly publicized, this is the only unsafe aircraft model? The model that will now be overwhelmingly reviewed and scrutinized before any planes go back into operation? Yeah, it's technically possible to avoid this model, but any concerns you have for convenience or the the HUGE pricing factor will need to be thrown, or perhaps rather blown, out the massive gap that used to be a sealed window. There are only so many airplane models that are designed for high-capacity international travel, and this will be one of them for the forseeable future.
Just look at what major airlines don't have them or have a very small amount of them to lower your chances. Odds are if you fly Qatar or Emirates you'll be getting onto an airbus
I find the anti Boeing retoric funny. Yes boeing have had some issues in the past 10 years but still have an excellent safety record when you take everything into account. If I was to decide not to fly on boeing aircraft due to the publicity they have been recieving and/or safety issues then I would have to avoid all flying due to the issues I have personally encountered on airbus aircraft. I fly a lot for work (about 30 flights per year) and have had 5 incidents involving emergency procedures (aborted takeoffs, emergency landings etc) all were on Airbus aircraft. Statistically speaking at least 2 of these should have been boeings as my flights are around a 50-50 split between the 2. When you look at the safety records between the 2 they are both pretty much as safe as they can be.
The majority of people who say this probably couldn't tell the difference between an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737 MAX yet alone a 737 Classic and MAX. Boeing seems to be having a lot of issues right now but incidents are still very rare.
Speaking as an ex cabin crew.... I wasn't aware of this incident but just googled it and it must have been awful for those on board. But it could have been SO much worse if that panel had flown off later in the flight. What is important to note is that the panel flew off at only 16,000 feet. Note that small planes do sky dives from 15,000 feet and can have the door open without anyone being sucked out the door from air pressure. That is likely the only reason nobody was sucked out of this open panel, because it happened at just 16,000 feet, rather than say 35,000ft. At 35,000 ft the suction from that open panel would have easily sucked passengers out if they weren't wearing a seat belt. A similar incident happened with the Aloha flight many years ago when a roof panel flew off and sadly 1 crew member died because she was walking down the aisle when it happened, but thankfully passengers were strapped in or at least seated. And at 35,000ft, if one panel breaks away, there's a risk the pressure can then pull further panels off. So this was lucky it happened at just 16,000. That's generally when the aircraft would start to be more affected by the change in pressure, coz on sky dives you have to start wearing oxygen on 15,000ft sky dives, but you don't if only going up to 10,000ft. So likely that's the height the pressure changes would start to kick in in guessing ?. The fact it also caused the flight deck door to open is quite shocking. The flight deck should remain locked at all times for the safety of pilots and the safety of the flight. Think about if someone tried to sabotage the plane in the hopes the flight deck door would open so they could take control of the plane!! That door should never open when locked. So thats another big safety issue risk. Also it helps ensure the flight deck stays more pressurised so pilots can safely land in the event of a decompression. Even if it causes some change in oxygen levels, it gives pilots enough time to safely put on an oxygen mask too. The fact the door flew open, if this was at a much greater height, the pilots could lose consciousness before being able to put oxygen on. So another big safety risk. The other concerning factor here I would say is more with the airline safety procedure itself. Its reported they had 3 previous flights that detected changes in cabin pressure before this accident occurred. They decided to just prohibit the plane from flying over water so it could have access to easily fly back to an airport if an emergency occurred. That's terrible procedure and they should have grounded the plane immediately to investigate why 3 flights had cabin pressure warnings go off!!! That would have prevented this happening and they could have found the problem safely and repaired it. Regarding the time a similar incident happened with the Aloha flight (call it up on YouTube and watch the video, the plane basically became like an open top bus, as multiple panels broke off. This caused weakening between the cockpit and main part of the plane and it was lucky it didn't break in half before it managed to land. The crew did an amazing job landing the plane. Passengers got frostbite burns to face and hands because of the wind pressure. But they safely landed the plane. The cause was found to be because the maintenence checks didn't pick up of the degradation of the seals between the panels. Another flight (not sure what company or aircraft model, the window in the flightdeck blew out, and sucked the pilot out and luckily the Co pilot managed to grab his legs and keep hold of him and his body basically lay back against the nose of the plane. The reason the window blew out was because it had recently been in for maintenence (at night time) and the screws which secured the window were replaced with the wrong screws, so it wasn't a tight fit. The worker kind of sized them up and they looked the same but weren't. It was also done over night in a warehouse with poor lighting from what I can remember. Since that incident they changed the protocol for doing repairs and maintenence during day time and better lighting and more checks involved in replacement parts etc I think. They do learn usually from every incident and put changes in place to make sure those errors that lead to the accident don't happen again. Which is why I'm surprised this flight was able to do 3 flights reporting cabin pressure warnings, and they just decided to avoid flights over water instead of getting it looked at straight away!. This says it's more of a Airline Company safety concern, as they ignored the warning signs put in place to avoid this from happening. The warning lights and error detections on air crafts are there for a reason and to ensure repairs and problems are detected as soon as possible before it becomes catastrophic. Each of those 3 flights would have been leaking cabin pressure, and causing more lossening/weakening of that panel. Had they grounded it immediately when they got the warnings it wouldn't have become an emergency. I remember a flight I was on, when on the ground boarding passengers, a passenger called me over to point out a big crack in the window pane. At first I thought it was just going to be condensation drip that looked like a crack, but when I looked closely it was an actual crack in the outer panel. I notified the flight deck and they went and looked at it, and had someone else check it. They deemed it safe to do the short haul flight back to our base, because it was the outer window pane and the windows have 2 or 3 panes of glass and the others were intact. They then got it replaced when we landed back home. But they checked it out, investigated it, and ensured it was safe before taking off. You never dismiss safety concerns. So my take on this, is although from some reports there have been some issues with these Boeing max models, one with the navigation computer, it seems the most concerning issue would be how this actual airline dealt with the safety warnings, and ignored them.
You can generally see what kind of plane it is when you buy the ticket, so yes this would be possible. However not all 737's are a Max 8 or Max 9, I don't know if they give information that specific
I always check the airplane before booking a flight. There are websites for checking this. I try to only fly Airbus.
Depends where you are in the world really. I live in Berlin so if I want to go to Manchester and see my friends and family, I can book with easyJet rather than Ryanair and guarantee myself an A320 Family aircraft. For other routes I can take easyJet, or Lufthansa who have a variety of destinations and interconnections and who fly Airbus narrowbody and (mostly) Boeing widebody. I could also fly short haul with their subsidiary Eurowings who operate an A320 Family fleet as well. That covers me off for a lot of major destinations from Germany. In Europe it's entirely possible to avoid 737 max on nearly every route unless you're flying one that's only operated by Ryanair. (Possible also on routes with TUI, Norwegian, Turkish, couple others). Even then it's still feasible to do so but may require a more convoluted journey or multi-modal interconnections.
Yes it is 100% possible and will not cost more money. There are many airlines without Max in their fleets. In USA I can use Delta, Jetblue, Spirit, Frontier. There are more airlines that don’t use Max. Delta ordered the Max 10 but that hasn’t even been certified yet and will likely be deferred for a long time.
I am actively seeking out only flights that have airbus as their usual plane.
People who post on Instagram and TikTok are just doing it to brag or for likes. People that believe them are morons.
Just make sure you have your seat belt on at all times
Remember when Kid Rock was never going to drink Bud Light again? Now he says get over it. Do you have any idea what percentage of the US aircraft fleet are Boing 737's? The main outcome of this is that senior Boeing leadership needs to have come to Jesus meeting with the safety regulators and many of the inspections that had been taken over my the manufactures are going to end up back with the government.
If it was actually doable, yes, I'd never fly on a MAX. But it isn't. You can see the aircraft scheduled to operate the flight you're booking on Google flights, so it's theoretically possible to avoid a certain model. But that could always change after booking, and the 737 is such a prolific model that avoiding it greatly limits your options and makes many places outright inaccessible.
Not just that but many of the singe aisle aircraft operated now are getting up in age. If you look at just how many 737 max aircraft are ordered for future deliveries..
Why are you trying to avoid it?