They presume something is wrong when I don't think that's at all been established fact. Airline travel has been steadily safer by the year[1]. Accidents and engineering snags have been a part of every single mode of transit since the Industrial Revolution, and it's low-sample-size populist fodder like a door blowing off that fear mongers people, but has no statistical significance in the grand scheme of safety.
Is there room for improvement? Sure. But some of y'all are acting like this is a fundamental failure of capitalism when the small handful of accidents over the past few months is actually evidence of how good planes are--not how bad.
One model, representing a nearly infinitesimally small percentage number of miles for Boeing. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is the 737MAX tried to do some relatively innovative things that backfired. And that product is now just as bad in terms of safety as the average plane was 30 years ago (but many times more efficient).
It is far from a condemnation of Boeing and capitalism that one of their more innovative products is suffering some setbacks, and those setbacks amount to it being as unsafe as the average plane 30 years ago. Think about that: in 1970 the average flight was 2x worse, and still people chose to accept that risk voluntarily. Today, that level of risk just means Boeing will try to refine the product.
Failures of "-isms" are when millions starve in famines--not when a new product suffered a pushed back timeline for being a relatively unsafe compared to other contemporaneous models.
By now Boeing has had enough embarrassing engineering failures in recent years that it's pretty clear there's something wrong at the company.
The safety of air travel is not due to current Boeing's practices, if anything, it's despite the efforts of their leadership to cut costs. Air travel safety is due to operational procedures, airline maintenance personnel and safety regulations.
I agree that this isn't a fundamental fault of capitalism, particularly since the way Boeing is propped up is not very capitalistic.
Comments
They presume something is wrong when I don't think that's at all been established fact. Airline travel has been steadily safer by the year[1]. Accidents and engineering snags have been a part of every single mode of transit since the Industrial Revolution, and it's low-sample-size populist fodder like a door blowing off that fear mongers people, but has no statistical significance in the grand scheme of safety.
Is there room for improvement? Sure. But some of y'all are acting like this is a fundamental failure of capitalism when the small handful of accidents over the past few months is actually evidence of how good planes are--not how bad.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety
How good other planes are. The MAX record is abysmal. https://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
So, there is one single model of airplane being manufactured that reaches 10% of the Max kill-rate, and it's a quite old one.
One model, representing a nearly infinitesimally small percentage number of miles for Boeing. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is the 737MAX tried to do some relatively innovative things that backfired. And that product is now just as bad in terms of safety as the average plane was 30 years ago (but many times more efficient).
It is far from a condemnation of Boeing and capitalism that one of their more innovative products is suffering some setbacks, and those setbacks amount to it being as unsafe as the average plane 30 years ago. Think about that: in 1970 the average flight was 2x worse, and still people chose to accept that risk voluntarily. Today, that level of risk just means Boeing will try to refine the product.
Failures of "-isms" are when millions starve in famines--not when a new product suffered a pushed back timeline for being a relatively unsafe compared to other contemporaneous models.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fatal-airliner-accidents-...
People used to take more risk, so everything fine? Refine the product after innovation, so everything is fine? What corporate double think is this?
And that's a very weird diversion, since this isn't about any ideology, but go ahead, travel by MAX 8.
By now Boeing has had enough embarrassing engineering failures in recent years that it's pretty clear there's something wrong at the company.
The safety of air travel is not due to current Boeing's practices, if anything, it's despite the efforts of their leadership to cut costs. Air travel safety is due to operational procedures, airline maintenance personnel and safety regulations.
I agree that this isn't a fundamental fault of capitalism, particularly since the way Boeing is propped up is not very capitalistic.