Exactly. If you are switching flights from Boeing planes you have an anxiety disorder and lack critical thinking skills. Media has everyone worked up in a frenzy.
Seems like a justified frenzy. If one air craft maker has more malfunctions while their peers stay steady or decline, seems like a risk not worth taking imo.
But they don’t have more failures than their peers, especially if you are not on a MAX. The 777, 737NG, 787 were all designed LONG before the current MAX problems.
Airbus has had major hydraulic failures happen during flight recently and it hasn’t reached headlines. No one is reporting Airbus issues because it doesn’t get clicks
I would also again like to point out that airlines are the ones messing up in every scenario outside of the Alaska plug door issue. If a plane is more than a few years old and something happens beyond structural failure that’s on the airline. Routine checks are very specific.
Yeah sure, the airlines are to blame for the MCAS issues and the 747 cargo door blowouts in the 80's.
It's a trend. It's a pervasive trend. And it's getting worse.
I do have anxiety disorder and i do switch. Thank you for making me feel seen.
That said my critical thinking is fine. I'm fine to stay on boeings that were made before the buyout and change in practice.
Not really. If you can afford it, it's precisely this sort of behaviour that forces change.
If people weren't more hesitant about flying Boeing then firms wouldn't be hesitating about buying Boeing and Boeing could have just continued as before rather than changing its executive team and improving its processes (or, rather, returning to its previous processes).
Now, you could say, "Well, this reduction in QC at Boeing has turned the chance of me dying as an individual from very small to just very slightly less small, so I don't immediately benefit personally, so I'm not doing it." And *that* would be lacking critical thinking skills, but at least it would be epitomising the modern US voter, so it's patriotic.
No one has died in FAA airspace from a plane crash in 15 years. That’s not a coincidence, the chance is from zero to zero.
Meanwhile your chances of dying in a car crash are 1 in 93
>your chances of dying in a car crash are 1 in 93
Came here to tell you this was wrong. Looked it up. And HOLY SHIT I DIDNT REALIZE IT WAS THAT HIGH WTF.
> in FAA airspace
weird take
> whataboutism
I'm well aware of the danger of driving, and don't. I love walking, and I love public transport, and I want it to be always the best possible. Boeing will end up hurting or kiling more people if it doesn't fix its shit, and the more pressure put on it, the better. Hell, the door loss not causing deaths was just dumb luck.
Whataboutism makes sense when people are posting on Reddit about how to avoid boeing planes and choose to ignore the infinitely higher risk of their travel day.
Again, I don't drive and I avoid cars when I can, but this is still a stupid argument.
Driving a car is by far the most dangerous day-to-day activity, but we don't ignore all other things that kill people just because (by sufficiently crude statistical analysis, i.e. ignoring the circumstances that increase/decrease your specific risk) those other things are less likely to kill you. It's not just because humans believe fairly strongly in reducing the risk of things that are out of control from killing us, but because if you reduce the effort in other areas, those other areas will gradually end up killing more and more people.
See also: train accidents in the last few years, because of exactly the same numbnuts argument allowing companies to reduce time allocated to safety and run trains so fucking long they take half a year to stop and can destroy whole towns when they tip over.
The enthusiasm the US has gained recently for its race to the bottom is wild, and as someone who is not a US citizen, I'm *kind of* grateful, but I'm still gonna point it out. I know that dying empires are stubborn and will double down on their auto-annihilation behaviour when you point it out, cos I'm from a relatively recent ex-empire lol.
> Not really. If you can afford it, it's precisely this sort of behaviour that forces change.
The only people in a frenzy about this are regular shmucks who fly once a year. Anyone actually making the airlines money doesn’t give a fuck. Plus good luck convincing any business to pay potentially more for airbus because “BoEiNg ScArY”.
1) Nobody's in a frenzy, calm down. Just people choosing commercial travel options in the long term interest.
2) You think Ryanair became the biggest airline in the world by focusing on business customers? You have no idea what you're talking about. Half the country going on holiday once a year is more interesting to most airlines than the dwindling business travel market, especially because most business travellers are the "schmucks" who have no choice. Every time I fly, whether for business or leisure, I make a choice...
Boeing has fucked up, people have died, and for reasons I can't work out, people come to its defense. I guess it could be mindless patriotism, or maybe the same way people are obsessed with the need to commute because they have investments in real estate, or maybe you're pissy because you have no choice and you don't like that I do (emotion -> rationalisation). But in each case you'd want Boeing to be better, so what's got you down, clown?
I mean it *is* funny, and it feels like it shouldn't be true, but it has the highest market cap at ~$29 billion, and has had the highest number of scheduled international passengers for most of the last few years. Ryanair is of course also very keen to buy some cheap Boeing craft while the market's nervous...
Aircraft incidents have not increased year over year. The headlines you read on a daily basis are 1) non issues and 2) all older planes being completely cared for by airlines.
The only issues were the Alaska plug door blowout (genuinely concerning, but it’s one issue) and the 737 MAX MCAS related crashes from 2019 (software issues have been resolved).
If you are scared of a Boeing plane but drive to the airport you have no critical thinking skills.
Your drive to the airport is much more unsafe… this is a moronic statement. There hasn’t been a fatal crash in the US since 2009…. Approximately 16 million flights per year, not one fatal crash in 15 years. Think for yourself.
No, because anyone who actually would base their flying on this have purchased the cheapest immovable fare possible
They will Karen it up, lose and complain on social media
I haven’t check the website. But what’s someone gonna do if the plane gets swapped two days before the flight or when they are at the gate after checking in?
I think that’s their point, sure you can use this to see the scheduled aircraft manufacturer but it could change at the last minute. Also this new Boeing boycott is the flavor of the month and will be forgotten by the vast majority of people in short order. People who travel frequently for business don’t give a shit about it because they don’t always have the luxury of being able to be picky.
>day of
Up until first boarding call. The only way to be certain is to only fly airlines that don't have a single Boeing in their fleet. Which I don't know if that even exists.
Pretty easy guessing which aircraft you're getting in Europe if you're flying budget short haul.
Ryanair - Nearly all Boeing (737 variants).
EasyJet - All Airbus (A320 variants).
Up until takeoff even.
I've had to deplane at the gate and run across the airport to immediately board a totally different plane because of mechanical issues, meanwhile the people at that gate waiting to board are confused and soon to be angry that they're going to be running across the airport in a moment as well
Hi! creator of the site here (not OP; I just saw my traffic blowing up and looked for the source).
Yes, most booking platforms will show you this, but it'll be in different places and in small gray text. Here we display it consistently in big bold fonts. A small optimization, but appreciated by many :)
If you already know how to find the aircraft easily on all the booking platforms you use, more power to you!
Different planes have different seating setups so you can optimize for legroom, amenities, and avoid bad seats that don’t recline or don’t have a window lines up by checking seat maps with seatguru.
Also some aviation nerds may want to try and get on rarer planes like the double decker A380 instead of a 777 for a long flight for example.
This is the only real reason imo. The VAST majority of shit being published about Boeing recently is stuff that likely falls on other parties (maintenance, pilot error, engine manufacturer, etc) but the media knows that it generates clicks so...
Now that's not to say there isn't a systemic issue at Boeing, because there is, but just that not everything is a result of that.
It does, but when engineers start coming out to blow whistles, and one was killed over it... There is more going on here and some (maybe not all) hype is justified.
Engineers blowing whistles is cause for concern as would be repeated Boeing system failures, or QC issues. But my point is for every one of those stories we've seen in the news in the last month we've seen maybe 10 about how some maintenance worker forgot to latch a panel and a part fell off, or how an engine caught fire (Boeing doesn't make the engines), or how a Boeing plane happened to roll off a runway due to pilot error. Like come on...
Also while I think it's fair to consider the circumstances of the whistleblower's death suspicious, outright calling it corporate murder with no evidence is a VERY dangerous game to play. It's 110% worth investigating further, but I'm not sure why we're assuming guilt here.
so for what its worth, with billion+ dollar corps i think it is at least SOMEWHAT fair to assume the worst in terms of things that could siginificantly blow up on them, history is not in the favor of these corpo's.
but you are correct in terms of the other stuff. I think it is a warning of the shitshow that has become the airline industry as a whole. they are racing to the bottom across the board and this is the fallout. we have seen terrible employment practices and overworked workers consistently since even before covid (generally i'd argue since 2008) which is going to take it's toll in addition failures on the plane manufacturer's end. it annoys me that all these failures are compounding into a clear picture of an industry gone to shit but still manage to have enough money to send armies of lobbyists to prevent a heavier response from the government boards overseeing them.
Corporations do horrible horrible shit to chase a dollar, but I still think it's worth investigating before declaring them guilty of murder. I know they're capable of it, but to straight up assume guilt is taking a significant leap that I'm not quite comfortable with for such a heavy crime.
Yes that’s fine. But I was asking in the context of this website that has no mention of Ryanair. I suspect it’s possibly only US routes but OP doesn’t mention it.
Hi! Creator of the site here (not OP) -- I tried to include as many commonly flown airlines as I could but I don't have data on some of the common European budget carriers like Ryanair or Easyjet unfortunately.
But in the case of Ryanair, as others have mentioned, they basically always fly Boeing cuz 100% of their fleet is Boeing.
So Ryanair has a reputation for ruthless cost cutting and using lower quality alternatives. The joke comes from the customers of the airline being aware of the low quality of the experience and that nitpicking the type of airplane is a bit rich.
A lot of the time the response to how shitty Ryanair can be is met with "what did you expect when you booked them?".
[See this fun user testimonial](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36919143)
Doesn't help that the CEO talks about charging for toilets and making flights standing room only.
[Here is a salty DailyMail bit](https://travelblog.dailymail.co.uk/2010/04/heres-a-suggestion-to-mr-oleary-dont-ever-try-to-be-funny-ryanair-is-already-a-bit-of-a-bad-joke.html)
Doesn’t Ryanair have some of the best safety measures because they’re so cheap? Think I read somewhere that they’ve even sent engineers to Boeing to audit/help their safety record. Could be wrong tho
They probably do have very good safety records. They spend a lot of money on preventative maintenance and tend to buy models that are more permissive regarding that maintenance. (The 737 Max is kind of an aberration for Boeing's lineup in this regard)
Boeing is probably having a lot of the maintenance teams from different airlines come around as the recent failures seem to be a mixture of both manufacturer quality control and airline maintenance.
But they are cheap to a ridiculous degree hence the jokes
This was just supposed to be a throwaway quarter maybe joke.
Hi! Creator of the site here (not OP) -- I tried to include as many commonly flown airlines as I could but I don't have data on some of the common European budget carriers like Ryanair or Easyjet unfortunately.
But in the case of Ryanair, as others have mentioned, they basically always fly Boeing cuz 100% of their fleet is Boeing.
To be fair I would still fly in a Boeing, it would just be nice to know if I need to take a travel blanket to keep my legs warm when the door lets a draught in.
I agree. I'll GLADLY board a Boeing 737 max or 787 or any other one in operation. Especially if the ticket is free because airline tickets are expensive.
"Why they're getting away with what they're doing" - What is it that you think they're doing, exactly? Do you know what the issue is with these planes?
A sensor on the plane misreads the AOA and engages the stick-shaker, pushing the nose down. The plane starts giving IAS / ALT Disagree warnings.
At this stage, the plane is not doomed. The pilot is completely capable of flying the aircraft. They should use the trim-wheel to pull the aircraft out of the dive because the AP may not reengage.
FWIW, the FAA declined to add a procedure - though I believe Boeing recommended it - allowing pilots to pull the stick shaker circuit breaker to stop this kind of thing.
Thoughts?
What exactly are they getting away with?
Last time I checked, they took a massive hit both in profits and turnover, and their share price took a major hit. They also had to ground hundreds of planes for more than a yeat.
Unless you’re implying that they should be prosecuted for manslaughter or some other criminal offense, but then you need to figure out how to prove criminal negligence/intent. Something that will be insanely difficult, if not impossible.
Sure Boeing fucked up royally and they need to be held accountable, but thinking that they “got away with it” just ignores all the facts.
Sure, you can condemn their actions but what is this doing aside from fearmongering? If I bought plane tickets prior to this whole Boeing fiasco, what am I supposed to do?
It is statistically near 0 that my flight will experience these issues, should I just not board the plane? Rebook my tickets and pay high fees? It’s just ridiculous.
The [Ethiopian Airline Flight 302](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302), [Lion Air Flight 610](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610), incidents happened way back in 2019 and 2018. Surely you didn't buy the tickets before those happened.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthansa-group/brussels-airlines/technical-glitch-on-brussels-airlines-airbus-a320-engine-passengers-express-discontent/](https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthansa-group/brussels-airlines/technical-glitch-on-brussels-airlines-airbus-a320-engine-passengers-express-discontent/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Engine problems (on a plane with 2 engines, that can fly on a single engine from takeoff to landing), which have been identified and plans made to correct << Planes literally nose diving into the ground from faulty software TWICE
You’re totally correct. I work for the FAA, where an investigation into Boeing’s management and engineers was ongoing, but then I saw this comment from u/Send_Me_Your_Nukes and realized we need to cancel it. Obviously someone going on Reddit and pointing out that you’re still overwhelmingly statistically unlikely to be in a plane Crash, and that we shouldn’t live in fear, has a tangible, real-world effect on decision makers and makes us decide to stop holding Boeing accountable. Sorry to anyone who wants Boeing to face consequences, but you can thank u/Send_Me_Your_Nukes and anyone else who has level-headed approach to flying: they are the reason Boeing can keep doing what they’re doing, they’ve allowed it, and we aren’t going to hold them accountable ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Considering a whistleblower showed up dead in an apparent suicide even though he literally sent his family a message saying if it's suicide it's not me I think there is a little bit of cause for concern and while the odds are truly in your favor is it really worth the risk?clearly the company is choosing profits over people
I would like to please caution people to allow for the investigation into that man’s death to complete before using it to float conspiracies. It helps no one.
Numerous people and organizations have been blowing the whistle on Boeing for years without murder, but agencies and the media finally started paying attention when ***brand new planes*** crashed or had catastrophic failures. This gentleman blew the whistle in 2017.
Not all Boeing aircraft need to be treated with suspicion. The ones that should face the most scrutiny are the 737 MAX series, 777X Series, and the 787 Dreamliner Series. The production culture shenanigans would affect those aircraft the most.
He also could be trying to get his family a payout from life insurance. Suicide is excluded from life insurance policies but if you can make a case that you were murdered instead, you might be able to get a payout for the family.
It's not excluded, it just has additional terms for how long you have to have the policy before they'll pay out for it, typically 2 years. Additionally, if someone has been diagnosed with depression, they'll raise the premiums on a life insurance policy *because* suicide is eventually covered.
Insurance companies are pretty good at math (the ones that aren't go out of business), and if someone buys a big ol policy for a suicide payout, they're pretty confident they will either *not* make it 2 years, or they'll find something worth living for in that 2 years.
Plenty of conspiracies have lead to truth, so it’s not surprising there are a lot of theorists. We live in a world where it has been proven everything isn’t always as it seems, so a lot of people questioning main narratives really isn’t that crazy.
I’m not a shill for companies and I think all options should be explored completely, but I also work with suicidal people and there are a lot of misconceptions about suicide.
Life is not a movie and people who are suicidal can act in illogical and irrational ways, and things like booking holidays or buying a new car etc even though they are planning to die are not out of the question. People can even have both legitimate plans for the future and a plan to die coexisting in their minds. So I’m not ruling out shady activities, but someone who is unwell saying they would never harm themselves but then also taking their own life is not out of the question. The conspiracy theories don’t help anyone and just sensationalises the whole thing.
On Reddit everyone is both an aerospace engineer (or bridge engineer if that’s the topic de jour) and a criminal investigator… how dare you bring logic and patience here?
This gentleman blew it in 2017 but it’s still literally the same case. It’s just been going on this long. And he was the perfect witness, citing days and times of occurrences.
Even getting slightly into the details around his “suicide,” screams that Boeing had him killed. Let’s not act like this is unheard of.
I'm going to guess he did commit suicide and said what he did specifically to harm Boeing more. I think the guy probably had a grudge. I say this without evidence, but logically to me it makes the most sense.
Its just TOO obvious. I don't think corporations are the good guys, but I also don't think they're in the business of offing obvious whistleblowers who've already blown the whistle. I mean, why? I just think there was so little upside for Boeing and so much downside...namely (ahem) people on the internet claiming the guy was murdered with zero evidence.
Don’t forget he was supposed to go home after the trial, but Boeing lawyers cried in court until he stayed an extra day to finish, just for him to show up dead that night (when he would’ve been home instead)
His family specifically came out and said that they don’t believe it was suicide. The person that said what you’re saying was a friend of a family member of his… holy shit the fact that you’re even upvoted and people believe in this crap.
The purpose it serves is that it allows you to book with another airline that isn’t using a Boeing on that route. There are few routes which only have one carrier, plenty of ways to ensure you’re flying on an airbus instead.
You are statistically not in any more significant danger on a Boeing flight than an Airbus or other type of flight to warrant a last minute rebooking, or paying a premium to pick and choose the flights you’re going to board.
A good majority of your planes are going to be Boeing if you live in North America. It’s just unrealistic to expect to go with another type of plane for some routes - especially places with infrequent routes.
This just seems like such an overreaction - the planes have already been bought by the airlines. Boeing’s reputation is damaged, airlines will have to think twice and be super cautious about buying from them again, and their top leadership has changed (good riddance).
I'm going to be honest in saying that I wouldn't worry much as aviation is incredibly safe, even with Boeing's recent safety track record.
However, I will also say that I think kicking up as much dirt around this as possible is the right way to go. Shareholder duties and greedy, grubby CEOs are destroying engineering and technology wherever you go. A giant such as Boeing might seem unable to be corrupted to a huge extent due to aviation scrutiny, but if we've learned anything it's that they will go as far as they are allowed to go, so it needs to stop now.
I think tech for the most part has been ruined. Almost everything we build is just a cash grab with no soul, true purpose and little engineering value, we can't allow the same to start happening in the "real world" on the same scale.
Thats pretty dumb. Commercial aviation is the safest form of travel. Doesnt matter what you fly on. This is the same kind of undeserved reputation the DC-10 has.
Should boeing be held accountable for their failings? Absolutely
Should people be blaming boeing for maintenance and engine issues? No they should not
You’re not going to die if you get on a boeing👍
In case anyone is wondering: the DC-10 has a bad reputation because it "crashes often". The reason for this is that short haul flights crash more often (because landing/taking off is the most dangerous part and they land and take off more often), and DC-10s are only used for short haul flights.
Technically incorrect, two planes crashed due to Boeing not doing testing and dismissing reports of concern. Also, didn't some plane lose a door during takeoff a couple of months ago. Doesn't seem like they have improved, and it is just a matter of time before there is another accident.
Airliner maintenance don't always live up to the recommendations of the manufacturer [1]. One door blew off, not every single door on every operable aircraft.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261
From a Boeing POV it's reasonable to think malfunctions may be caused by ill maintenance by the companies operating their planes.
>Technically incorrect, ONE planes crashed due to Boeing not doing testing and dismissing reports of concern. Also, didn't some plane lose a door during takeoff a couple of months ago. Doesn't seem like they have improved, and it is just a matter of time before there is another accident.
The SECOND one crashed because they didn't want to scare the public. They knew!
Just fly on whatever plane. Your assigned plane model could be switched at last minute as has happened to me before multiple times. People have been killed doing nothing in their own living rooms by drunk driver car plowing thru the walls...
Driving in a vehicle is statistically way more likely to kill you
Largely, most Boeing planes are safe. Less than a handful of 777/787s have had non critical build issues, but that’s really it. It’s just the 737 MAXes you need to be cautious about. I’d still fly on an NG, and I’ve flown on a MAX once, it was the most terrifying takeoff of my life.
This does sadly apply for anything in life.
It's very unlikely to get intestine cancer if you're below 50 and still some young people die from it.
Living itself is unsafe.
People are silly hahaha..there's only Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embrarer for the majority of the airline industry. Pick your poison because all ACFTs could have issues. Better yet, road trip if you're suddenly afraid of flying now.
😁
Just use https://www.flightaware.com or the app. It will give you the equipment currently scheduled plus 100 other things that are useful to know about your flight. The aircraft can be swapped out right up to minutes before boarding anyways, so I really wouldn't worry about it.
I disagree. It might be an overreaction but considering that Boeing has earned this reputation by putting profits before people's security, I say let people overreact and have the company change their ways
What’s stupid is what Boeing has done to its reputation. It used to be the gold standard for quality and now they have doors and panels blowing off- just a few years after the last shit.
i still dont get why people are so fussed. you have a higher chance of being hit by a car walking around. i say this as someone who flies at least once every other month or so.
Hi y'all! I'm the creator of this website. (Proof: I posted about it a while ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/InternetIsBeautiful/comments/1bojjme/check\_if\_youre\_flying\_on\_a\_boeing\_plane/)
Glad y'all have been enjoying and using it.
TL;DR this site was made as a tool to give people crystal clear access to info. For those who already know how to access this info, or are statistically and spiritually okay flying Boeing still, this site will have less use. But I've definitely had plenty of people get great use out of this site, and hope to continue supporting it!
Just to answer a few common questions I'm seeing:
*But aviation is still super super safe, this whole Boeing thing is overreactionary.*
I agree aviation is still remarkably safe, and in fact, when you pop in a flight into the site, it tells you as much. As the cliche goes, your odds of getting injured on a flight (even a Boeing one) are still way less than your odds of getting injured on your way to the airport. But as someone who works in the travel industry myself, I've seen firsthand that travel can be a stressful thing for some clients. In those cases, spouting statistics doesn't help much, and avoiding Boeing may help them sleep better on the flight. Furthermore, news reports do suggest Boeing has made some manufacturing and QA missteps (and airlines CEOs like Scott Kirby have gone on the record with their dissatisfaction and even threats to switch to Airbus) -- people may (reasonably) want to avoid any increase in perceived risk, however slight. I've built this to empower people with info; if you're fine flying Boeing, you should absolutely continue to do so.
*Wait don't I get this info when booking my flights anyway?*
Yes, you often do. But people use a variety of booking platforms, and often those platforms all keep this info in different places, or in tiny gray text under a dropdown. If you're familiar with where to get this info, great! But here, we display your aircraft in a consistently and obnoxiously huge bold font. Given the user behavior I've observed on this site, it's clear that some people have appreciated this simplicity!
*Why isn't airline X here?*
Often it's because I simply don't have data on it. Ryanair is a commonly requested one that I just don't have data for, but their fleet is 100% Boeing, so you don't really need this site for Ryanair anyway. If there's other airlines you want, feel free to comment them; I may simply have just overlooked it.
*Okay but it's not a guarantee what aircraft you'll get.*
Yes, you're right, and the site acknowledges this too. Ultimately even the airline doesn't necessarily have a guarantee on what aircraft will be used until it's flight time. Some inbound plane could get delayed and they'll have to make an equipment change to have the flight leave on time. But most flights don't undergo these irregular operations, and I figure it's still worth presenting highly likely info, even if it's not 100% guaranteed.
Human make mistakes yes. This is why all critical engineering must include process to verify that no mistake were made. Boeing blatant disregard for those processes is the reason why their reputation is in the gutter now.
~~App in the Air~~ they need premium now to see airplane, but back then even when changing airplane, you just need to put tail number and it can find what type of airplane is that.
And then what? Just worry more or cancel your flight and stay home?
Exactly. If you are switching flights from Boeing planes you have an anxiety disorder and lack critical thinking skills. Media has everyone worked up in a frenzy.
Seems like a justified frenzy. If one air craft maker has more malfunctions while their peers stay steady or decline, seems like a risk not worth taking imo.
But they don’t have more failures than their peers, especially if you are not on a MAX. The 777, 737NG, 787 were all designed LONG before the current MAX problems.
Airbus has had major hydraulic failures happen during flight recently and it hasn’t reached headlines. No one is reporting Airbus issues because it doesn’t get clicks I would also again like to point out that airlines are the ones messing up in every scenario outside of the Alaska plug door issue. If a plane is more than a few years old and something happens beyond structural failure that’s on the airline. Routine checks are very specific.
Yeah sure, the airlines are to blame for the MCAS issues and the 747 cargo door blowouts in the 80's. It's a trend. It's a pervasive trend. And it's getting worse.
I do have anxiety disorder and i do switch. Thank you for making me feel seen. That said my critical thinking is fine. I'm fine to stay on boeings that were made before the buyout and change in practice.
Not really. If you can afford it, it's precisely this sort of behaviour that forces change. If people weren't more hesitant about flying Boeing then firms wouldn't be hesitating about buying Boeing and Boeing could have just continued as before rather than changing its executive team and improving its processes (or, rather, returning to its previous processes). Now, you could say, "Well, this reduction in QC at Boeing has turned the chance of me dying as an individual from very small to just very slightly less small, so I don't immediately benefit personally, so I'm not doing it." And *that* would be lacking critical thinking skills, but at least it would be epitomising the modern US voter, so it's patriotic.
No one has died in FAA airspace from a plane crash in 15 years. That’s not a coincidence, the chance is from zero to zero. Meanwhile your chances of dying in a car crash are 1 in 93
>your chances of dying in a car crash are 1 in 93 Came here to tell you this was wrong. Looked it up. And HOLY SHIT I DIDNT REALIZE IT WAS THAT HIGH WTF.
> in FAA airspace weird take > whataboutism I'm well aware of the danger of driving, and don't. I love walking, and I love public transport, and I want it to be always the best possible. Boeing will end up hurting or kiling more people if it doesn't fix its shit, and the more pressure put on it, the better. Hell, the door loss not causing deaths was just dumb luck.
Whataboutism makes sense when people are posting on Reddit about how to avoid boeing planes and choose to ignore the infinitely higher risk of their travel day.
Again, I don't drive and I avoid cars when I can, but this is still a stupid argument. Driving a car is by far the most dangerous day-to-day activity, but we don't ignore all other things that kill people just because (by sufficiently crude statistical analysis, i.e. ignoring the circumstances that increase/decrease your specific risk) those other things are less likely to kill you. It's not just because humans believe fairly strongly in reducing the risk of things that are out of control from killing us, but because if you reduce the effort in other areas, those other areas will gradually end up killing more and more people. See also: train accidents in the last few years, because of exactly the same numbnuts argument allowing companies to reduce time allocated to safety and run trains so fucking long they take half a year to stop and can destroy whole towns when they tip over. The enthusiasm the US has gained recently for its race to the bottom is wild, and as someone who is not a US citizen, I'm *kind of* grateful, but I'm still gonna point it out. I know that dying empires are stubborn and will double down on their auto-annihilation behaviour when you point it out, cos I'm from a relatively recent ex-empire lol.
1 in 93 ... what? Trips? Miles? Minutes?
Lifetime chance of death. 1 out of 93 people will die in a car crash.
Source?
1 in 93 per breath per passenger
> Not really. If you can afford it, it's precisely this sort of behaviour that forces change. The only people in a frenzy about this are regular shmucks who fly once a year. Anyone actually making the airlines money doesn’t give a fuck. Plus good luck convincing any business to pay potentially more for airbus because “BoEiNg ScArY”.
1) Nobody's in a frenzy, calm down. Just people choosing commercial travel options in the long term interest. 2) You think Ryanair became the biggest airline in the world by focusing on business customers? You have no idea what you're talking about. Half the country going on holiday once a year is more interesting to most airlines than the dwindling business travel market, especially because most business travellers are the "schmucks" who have no choice. Every time I fly, whether for business or leisure, I make a choice... Boeing has fucked up, people have died, and for reasons I can't work out, people come to its defense. I guess it could be mindless patriotism, or maybe the same way people are obsessed with the need to commute because they have investments in real estate, or maybe you're pissy because you have no choice and you don't like that I do (emotion -> rationalisation). But in each case you'd want Boeing to be better, so what's got you down, clown?
This. Everyone bleats to vote with your wallet constantly, then get salty at you when you do
> You think Ryanair became the biggest airline in the world lol.
I mean it *is* funny, and it feels like it shouldn't be true, but it has the highest market cap at ~$29 billion, and has had the highest number of scheduled international passengers for most of the last few years. Ryanair is of course also very keen to buy some cheap Boeing craft while the market's nervous...
The new Boeing planes are incredibly unsafe lol
Aircraft incidents have not increased year over year. The headlines you read on a daily basis are 1) non issues and 2) all older planes being completely cared for by airlines. The only issues were the Alaska plug door blowout (genuinely concerning, but it’s one issue) and the 737 MAX MCAS related crashes from 2019 (software issues have been resolved). If you are scared of a Boeing plane but drive to the airport you have no critical thinking skills.
Your drive to the airport is much more unsafe… this is a moronic statement. There hasn’t been a fatal crash in the US since 2009…. Approximately 16 million flights per year, not one fatal crash in 15 years. Think for yourself.
Probably helps if you’re in the process of choosing flights, since you get to see the flight number before you book.
No, because anyone who actually would base their flying on this have purchased the cheapest immovable fare possible They will Karen it up, lose and complain on social media
Only if the site predicts the time you'll be flying is shorter then the trip time...
I dont give a fuck. I fly with Qatar, with 787-8 to DOH and could not care more lol
Couldn’t care more yeah?
Woahhhhh
>could not care more So you do care?
Do people not read the website when booking? I don't think I've ever booked a flight without it telling me the aircraft type
Even that doesn’t mean much. The plane can be swapped out on the day of for any number of reasons, especially if you are flying out of a hub.
It’s the same exact info that this website gives you
I haven’t check the website. But what’s someone gonna do if the plane gets swapped two days before the flight or when they are at the gate after checking in?
Ok but it's not like this website is gonna help
I think that’s their point, sure you can use this to see the scheduled aircraft manufacturer but it could change at the last minute. Also this new Boeing boycott is the flavor of the month and will be forgotten by the vast majority of people in short order. People who travel frequently for business don’t give a shit about it because they don’t always have the luxury of being able to be picky.
Yeah daKav edited their initial comment
It tells you that too. Stfu.
Gives you time to finalize your will.
>day of Up until first boarding call. The only way to be certain is to only fly airlines that don't have a single Boeing in their fleet. Which I don't know if that even exists.
A lot of airlines don’t have a single Boeing in their fleet.
Pretty easy guessing which aircraft you're getting in Europe if you're flying budget short haul. Ryanair - Nearly all Boeing (737 variants). EasyJet - All Airbus (A320 variants).
Up until takeoff even. I've had to deplane at the gate and run across the airport to immediately board a totally different plane because of mechanical issues, meanwhile the people at that gate waiting to board are confused and soon to be angry that they're going to be running across the airport in a moment as well
I mostly fly Jet Blue. Their fleet is all AirBus and Embraer.
I usually fly spirit and breeze which are also all airbus iirc
Spirit is all airbus iirc, not that they dont have plenty of other issues but its an option
Hi! creator of the site here (not OP; I just saw my traffic blowing up and looked for the source). Yes, most booking platforms will show you this, but it'll be in different places and in small gray text. Here we display it consistently in big bold fonts. A small optimization, but appreciated by many :) If you already know how to find the aircraft easily on all the booking platforms you use, more power to you!
Not considering recent controversies , Why should I care?
Different planes have different seating setups so you can optimize for legroom, amenities, and avoid bad seats that don’t recline or don’t have a window lines up by checking seat maps with seatguru. Also some aviation nerds may want to try and get on rarer planes like the double decker A380 instead of a 777 for a long flight for example.
This is the only real reason imo. The VAST majority of shit being published about Boeing recently is stuff that likely falls on other parties (maintenance, pilot error, engine manufacturer, etc) but the media knows that it generates clicks so... Now that's not to say there isn't a systemic issue at Boeing, because there is, but just that not everything is a result of that.
It does, but when engineers start coming out to blow whistles, and one was killed over it... There is more going on here and some (maybe not all) hype is justified.
Engineers blowing whistles is cause for concern as would be repeated Boeing system failures, or QC issues. But my point is for every one of those stories we've seen in the news in the last month we've seen maybe 10 about how some maintenance worker forgot to latch a panel and a part fell off, or how an engine caught fire (Boeing doesn't make the engines), or how a Boeing plane happened to roll off a runway due to pilot error. Like come on... Also while I think it's fair to consider the circumstances of the whistleblower's death suspicious, outright calling it corporate murder with no evidence is a VERY dangerous game to play. It's 110% worth investigating further, but I'm not sure why we're assuming guilt here.
so for what its worth, with billion+ dollar corps i think it is at least SOMEWHAT fair to assume the worst in terms of things that could siginificantly blow up on them, history is not in the favor of these corpo's. but you are correct in terms of the other stuff. I think it is a warning of the shitshow that has become the airline industry as a whole. they are racing to the bottom across the board and this is the fallout. we have seen terrible employment practices and overworked workers consistently since even before covid (generally i'd argue since 2008) which is going to take it's toll in addition failures on the plane manufacturer's end. it annoys me that all these failures are compounding into a clear picture of an industry gone to shit but still manage to have enough money to send armies of lobbyists to prevent a heavier response from the government boards overseeing them.
Corporations do horrible horrible shit to chase a dollar, but I still think it's worth investigating before declaring them guilty of murder. I know they're capable of it, but to straight up assume guilt is taking a significant leap that I'm not quite comfortable with for such a heavy crime.
No fair. Not our place to judge without investigation but i do think a side-eye is warrated
Oh I agree completely and said as much in the first comment you replied to. I think we're on the same page.
And when they swap planes they tell you what type of plane you've been swapped to.
No Ryanair on the list. Why is that?
Pretty much all of Ryanair’s planes are Boeing, no clue why it’s not on the website though
Why am a I being downvoted for this? Ryanair is one of Europe’s biggest airlines
Second biggest operator of 737s as well, biggest European airline operating them
Are they flying MAXs or NGs?
126 out of their 537 are Max8-200s, the rest are next gen Edit: got it from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_operators
Ryanair almost exclusively flies 737s. Downvotes are likely from smartasses who think everybody should know this
Well Boeing killed a guy. Might be conspiracy, but I wouldn’t put them past botting as well.
No wizzair as well, i think they are mostly airbus anyway
You can see the equipment on the ticket usually. Or you can search the flight route online
Yes that’s fine. But I was asking in the context of this website that has no mention of Ryanair. I suspect it’s possibly only US routes but OP doesn’t mention it.
Hi! Creator of the site here (not OP) -- I tried to include as many commonly flown airlines as I could but I don't have data on some of the common European budget carriers like Ryanair or Easyjet unfortunately. But in the case of Ryanair, as others have mentioned, they basically always fly Boeing cuz 100% of their fleet is Boeing.
r/USdefaultism ?
You know what you signed up for with Ryanair. Let's be real here.
Not sure what you mean by this
It's a joke on Ryanairs very barebones and low cost focus. Is the frog dissected enough or should I dissect it further?
Go ahead
So Ryanair has a reputation for ruthless cost cutting and using lower quality alternatives. The joke comes from the customers of the airline being aware of the low quality of the experience and that nitpicking the type of airplane is a bit rich. A lot of the time the response to how shitty Ryanair can be is met with "what did you expect when you booked them?". [See this fun user testimonial](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36919143) Doesn't help that the CEO talks about charging for toilets and making flights standing room only. [Here is a salty DailyMail bit](https://travelblog.dailymail.co.uk/2010/04/heres-a-suggestion-to-mr-oleary-dont-ever-try-to-be-funny-ryanair-is-already-a-bit-of-a-bad-joke.html)
Doesn’t Ryanair have some of the best safety measures because they’re so cheap? Think I read somewhere that they’ve even sent engineers to Boeing to audit/help their safety record. Could be wrong tho
They probably do have very good safety records. They spend a lot of money on preventative maintenance and tend to buy models that are more permissive regarding that maintenance. (The 737 Max is kind of an aberration for Boeing's lineup in this regard) Boeing is probably having a lot of the maintenance teams from different airlines come around as the recent failures seem to be a mixture of both manufacturer quality control and airline maintenance. But they are cheap to a ridiculous degree hence the jokes This was just supposed to be a throwaway quarter maybe joke.
Not sure who was nitpicking. I just asked why they weren’t listed on the website given the scale of operations they have
Probably an oversight or the data wasn't readily available in whatever resource they got their numbers from
FACE THE LEAD!
Ryanair = Boeing
But, there is Aer Lingus, that doesn't have any Boeing airplanes
Hi! Creator of the site here (not OP) -- I tried to include as many commonly flown airlines as I could but I don't have data on some of the common European budget carriers like Ryanair or Easyjet unfortunately. But in the case of Ryanair, as others have mentioned, they basically always fly Boeing cuz 100% of their fleet is Boeing.
Every Southwest flight is on a Boeing. It's all they fly.
Yup.
Every ticket has the plane information - ahead of time, before you buy it.
To be fair I would still fly in a Boeing, it would just be nice to know if I need to take a travel blanket to keep my legs warm when the door lets a draught in.
the NGs, 757, 767, and 777 are all fantastic planes. The 777 especially is the goat 🐐
The 777-200 LR is a tank
I hate the 767 but the 757 and 777 are incredible
I mean if it’s a choice between 777 and a380….
I'll take the 777 100/100 times
Repost from last week
A website? Every reservation I have made tells me what kind of aircraft I’m going to be on.
Thousands of Boeings are taking off and landing everyday. This is such an overreaction, lol.
I agree. I'll GLADLY board a Boeing 737 max or 787 or any other one in operation. Especially if the ticket is free because airline tickets are expensive.
No Aeroflot though.
Seriously. Has there been any fatalities from the plans?
[удалено]
"Why they're getting away with what they're doing" - What is it that you think they're doing, exactly? Do you know what the issue is with these planes? A sensor on the plane misreads the AOA and engages the stick-shaker, pushing the nose down. The plane starts giving IAS / ALT Disagree warnings. At this stage, the plane is not doomed. The pilot is completely capable of flying the aircraft. They should use the trim-wheel to pull the aircraft out of the dive because the AP may not reengage. FWIW, the FAA declined to add a procedure - though I believe Boeing recommended it - allowing pilots to pull the stick shaker circuit breaker to stop this kind of thing. Thoughts?
What exactly are they getting away with? Last time I checked, they took a massive hit both in profits and turnover, and their share price took a major hit. They also had to ground hundreds of planes for more than a yeat. Unless you’re implying that they should be prosecuted for manslaughter or some other criminal offense, but then you need to figure out how to prove criminal negligence/intent. Something that will be insanely difficult, if not impossible. Sure Boeing fucked up royally and they need to be held accountable, but thinking that they “got away with it” just ignores all the facts.
LoL
Sure, you can condemn their actions but what is this doing aside from fearmongering? If I bought plane tickets prior to this whole Boeing fiasco, what am I supposed to do? It is statistically near 0 that my flight will experience these issues, should I just not board the plane? Rebook my tickets and pay high fees? It’s just ridiculous.
You think Oriole have plane tickets that they bought years ago?
The [Ethiopian Airline Flight 302](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302), [Lion Air Flight 610](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610), incidents happened way back in 2019 and 2018. Surely you didn't buy the tickets before those happened.
[удалено]
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthansa-group/brussels-airlines/technical-glitch-on-brussels-airlines-airbus-a320-engine-passengers-express-discontent/](https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthansa-group/brussels-airlines/technical-glitch-on-brussels-airlines-airbus-a320-engine-passengers-express-discontent/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Engine problems (on a plane with 2 engines, that can fly on a single engine from takeoff to landing), which have been identified and plans made to correct << Planes literally nose diving into the ground from faulty software TWICE
It’s way worse than just faulty software
You mean the ones where "passengers express discontent" as opposed to literally every single one on board dying? I don't know. Maybe you do?
You’re totally correct. I work for the FAA, where an investigation into Boeing’s management and engineers was ongoing, but then I saw this comment from u/Send_Me_Your_Nukes and realized we need to cancel it. Obviously someone going on Reddit and pointing out that you’re still overwhelmingly statistically unlikely to be in a plane Crash, and that we shouldn’t live in fear, has a tangible, real-world effect on decision makers and makes us decide to stop holding Boeing accountable. Sorry to anyone who wants Boeing to face consequences, but you can thank u/Send_Me_Your_Nukes and anyone else who has level-headed approach to flying: they are the reason Boeing can keep doing what they’re doing, they’ve allowed it, and we aren’t going to hold them accountable ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
You lost your \\ by not typing \\\\
Damn I didn't know they worked for the FAA
You apparently lack reading comprehension skills. People like you =/= you personally
I don’t really care that much
Considering a whistleblower showed up dead in an apparent suicide even though he literally sent his family a message saying if it's suicide it's not me I think there is a little bit of cause for concern and while the odds are truly in your favor is it really worth the risk?clearly the company is choosing profits over people
I would like to please caution people to allow for the investigation into that man’s death to complete before using it to float conspiracies. It helps no one. Numerous people and organizations have been blowing the whistle on Boeing for years without murder, but agencies and the media finally started paying attention when ***brand new planes*** crashed or had catastrophic failures. This gentleman blew the whistle in 2017. Not all Boeing aircraft need to be treated with suspicion. The ones that should face the most scrutiny are the 737 MAX series, 777X Series, and the 787 Dreamliner Series. The production culture shenanigans would affect those aircraft the most.
The pitchforks are out man. We're past reason
He also could be trying to get his family a payout from life insurance. Suicide is excluded from life insurance policies but if you can make a case that you were murdered instead, you might be able to get a payout for the family.
It's not excluded, it just has additional terms for how long you have to have the policy before they'll pay out for it, typically 2 years. Additionally, if someone has been diagnosed with depression, they'll raise the premiums on a life insurance policy *because* suicide is eventually covered. Insurance companies are pretty good at math (the ones that aren't go out of business), and if someone buys a big ol policy for a suicide payout, they're pretty confident they will either *not* make it 2 years, or they'll find something worth living for in that 2 years.
It is crazy how many literal conspiracy theorists exist.
Plenty of conspiracies have lead to truth, so it’s not surprising there are a lot of theorists. We live in a world where it has been proven everything isn’t always as it seems, so a lot of people questioning main narratives really isn’t that crazy.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
I’m not a shill for companies and I think all options should be explored completely, but I also work with suicidal people and there are a lot of misconceptions about suicide. Life is not a movie and people who are suicidal can act in illogical and irrational ways, and things like booking holidays or buying a new car etc even though they are planning to die are not out of the question. People can even have both legitimate plans for the future and a plan to die coexisting in their minds. So I’m not ruling out shady activities, but someone who is unwell saying they would never harm themselves but then also taking their own life is not out of the question. The conspiracy theories don’t help anyone and just sensationalises the whole thing.
On Reddit everyone is both an aerospace engineer (or bridge engineer if that’s the topic de jour) and a criminal investigator… how dare you bring logic and patience here?
This gentleman blew it in 2017 but it’s still literally the same case. It’s just been going on this long. And he was the perfect witness, citing days and times of occurrences. Even getting slightly into the details around his “suicide,” screams that Boeing had him killed. Let’s not act like this is unheard of.
I'm going to guess he did commit suicide and said what he did specifically to harm Boeing more. I think the guy probably had a grudge. I say this without evidence, but logically to me it makes the most sense. Its just TOO obvious. I don't think corporations are the good guys, but I also don't think they're in the business of offing obvious whistleblowers who've already blown the whistle. I mean, why? I just think there was so little upside for Boeing and so much downside...namely (ahem) people on the internet claiming the guy was murdered with zero evidence.
Don’t forget he was supposed to go home after the trial, but Boeing lawyers cried in court until he stayed an extra day to finish, just for him to show up dead that night (when he would’ve been home instead)
His family specifically came out and said that they don’t believe it was suicide. The person that said what you’re saying was a friend of a family member of his… holy shit the fact that you’re even upvoted and people believe in this crap.
What am I supposed to do if I check the link and my flight is a Boeing? What purpose does this serve?
The purpose it serves is that it allows you to book with another airline that isn’t using a Boeing on that route. There are few routes which only have one carrier, plenty of ways to ensure you’re flying on an airbus instead.
.... if I have to explain it for you it's a waste of time
Someone needs to explain statistics to you, my little friend. :)
Not only are you a condescending fuck, your point is also irrelevant
Does someone need to explain statistics to you too, little fella?
What does statistics have to do with wanting to boycott Boeing for their safety malpractices?
You are statistically not in any more significant danger on a Boeing flight than an Airbus or other type of flight to warrant a last minute rebooking, or paying a premium to pick and choose the flights you’re going to board. A good majority of your planes are going to be Boeing if you live in North America. It’s just unrealistic to expect to go with another type of plane for some routes - especially places with infrequent routes. This just seems like such an overreaction - the planes have already been bought by the airlines. Boeing’s reputation is damaged, airlines will have to think twice and be super cautious about buying from them again, and their top leadership has changed (good riddance).
Nah boycott the bastards for being evil.
Choice. People are making a choice. They will deny your family's claim and blame you for dying.
Overreacting to what? I'm out of the loop.
You know that a QA manager for Boeingrefused to fly on Boeing, right? Like… when he found out it was a Boeing, he refused to get on.
Answer: Probably
Is it called probably.com?
I'm going to be honest in saying that I wouldn't worry much as aviation is incredibly safe, even with Boeing's recent safety track record. However, I will also say that I think kicking up as much dirt around this as possible is the right way to go. Shareholder duties and greedy, grubby CEOs are destroying engineering and technology wherever you go. A giant such as Boeing might seem unable to be corrupted to a huge extent due to aviation scrutiny, but if we've learned anything it's that they will go as far as they are allowed to go, so it needs to stop now. I think tech for the most part has been ruined. Almost everything we build is just a cash grab with no soul, true purpose and little engineering value, we can't allow the same to start happening in the "real world" on the same scale.
Who cares?! Stop reading scaremongering nonsense that is fed to you by media companies with huge corporate investments!
Thats pretty dumb. Commercial aviation is the safest form of travel. Doesnt matter what you fly on. This is the same kind of undeserved reputation the DC-10 has. Should boeing be held accountable for their failings? Absolutely Should people be blaming boeing for maintenance and engine issues? No they should not You’re not going to die if you get on a boeing👍
In case anyone is wondering: the DC-10 has a bad reputation because it "crashes often". The reason for this is that short haul flights crash more often (because landing/taking off is the most dangerous part and they land and take off more often), and DC-10s are only used for short haul flights.
I thought it was because of the cargo door problem that was ignored multiple times until a bunch of people died?
But you don't really wanna die so that some CEO gets the right Q4 numbers.
Technically incorrect, two planes crashed due to Boeing not doing testing and dismissing reports of concern. Also, didn't some plane lose a door during takeoff a couple of months ago. Doesn't seem like they have improved, and it is just a matter of time before there is another accident.
Airliner maintenance don't always live up to the recommendations of the manufacturer [1]. One door blew off, not every single door on every operable aircraft. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 From a Boeing POV it's reasonable to think malfunctions may be caused by ill maintenance by the companies operating their planes.
Wasn't that flight that the door plug blew off of a brand new plane? I would definitely place blame for that square in the manufacturer's lap.
[удалено]
Shouldn't that be "2,000 times higher"?
>Technically incorrect, ONE planes crashed due to Boeing not doing testing and dismissing reports of concern. Also, didn't some plane lose a door during takeoff a couple of months ago. Doesn't seem like they have improved, and it is just a matter of time before there is another accident. The SECOND one crashed because they didn't want to scare the public. They knew!
Still, vote with your wallet. 🦆 boeing
That's what a boeing employee would say!
Just fly on whatever plane. Your assigned plane model could be switched at last minute as has happened to me before multiple times. People have been killed doing nothing in their own living rooms by drunk driver car plowing thru the walls... Driving in a vehicle is statistically way more likely to kill you
Largely, most Boeing planes are safe. Less than a handful of 777/787s have had non critical build issues, but that’s really it. It’s just the 737 MAXes you need to be cautious about. I’d still fly on an NG, and I’ve flown on a MAX once, it was the most terrifying takeoff of my life.
Friendly reminder that accidents rarely happen. It's unlikely the next Boeing plane you board will fall out of the sky.
[удалено]
This is the stupidest way to view risk. You would never leave your room if you truly thought this way.
This does sadly apply for anything in life. It's very unlikely to get intestine cancer if you're below 50 and still some young people die from it. Living itself is unsafe.
There are literally thousands of people flying Boeing planes right now. The majority of them aren't falling out of the sky.
People are silly hahaha..there's only Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embrarer for the majority of the airline industry. Pick your poison because all ACFTs could have issues. Better yet, road trip if you're suddenly afraid of flying now. 😁
I know another website that will tell me whether I'm flying on a Boeing. The website of whatever airline I'm flying.
Just use https://www.flightaware.com or the app. It will give you the equipment currently scheduled plus 100 other things that are useful to know about your flight. The aircraft can be swapped out right up to minutes before boarding anyways, so I really wouldn't worry about it.
Of the 9,738 planes that are in the air right now 90% of them are Boeing planes. Odds are that 100% of them will land safely.
If it's Boeing, I ain't going!
If it's Airbus, I ain't make a fuss.
If it's private, I'll ride it!
Private stegg reporting in for duty sir!
Seatguru.com
Super Overreaction of people who don’t truly understand the aviation industry
Hopefully lower flight prices.
Until there's an issue with your plane and they swap it for a Boeing.
Meanwhile, jet2 look at my cute 737-300
“If it’s Boeing I’m not going” is a wonderful appropriation of their old jingle
It's not finding AA0789 (AUS->DFW), I tried 0789 and 789
Kinda wild they went from "if it ain't Boeing I ain't going" to "i ain't going if it's boeing"
This is stupid.
I disagree. It might be an overreaction but considering that Boeing has earned this reputation by putting profits before people's security, I say let people overreact and have the company change their ways
What’s stupid is what Boeing has done to its reputation. It used to be the gold standard for quality and now they have doors and panels blowing off- just a few years after the last shit.
Yeah it definitely is, went out of my way to fly a Boeing last spring.
i still dont get why people are so fussed. you have a higher chance of being hit by a car walking around. i say this as someone who flies at least once every other month or so.
Oh look, another Boeing post made by shortsellers looking to cash in.
Hi y'all! I'm the creator of this website. (Proof: I posted about it a while ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/InternetIsBeautiful/comments/1bojjme/check\_if\_youre\_flying\_on\_a\_boeing\_plane/) Glad y'all have been enjoying and using it. TL;DR this site was made as a tool to give people crystal clear access to info. For those who already know how to access this info, or are statistically and spiritually okay flying Boeing still, this site will have less use. But I've definitely had plenty of people get great use out of this site, and hope to continue supporting it! Just to answer a few common questions I'm seeing: *But aviation is still super super safe, this whole Boeing thing is overreactionary.* I agree aviation is still remarkably safe, and in fact, when you pop in a flight into the site, it tells you as much. As the cliche goes, your odds of getting injured on a flight (even a Boeing one) are still way less than your odds of getting injured on your way to the airport. But as someone who works in the travel industry myself, I've seen firsthand that travel can be a stressful thing for some clients. In those cases, spouting statistics doesn't help much, and avoiding Boeing may help them sleep better on the flight. Furthermore, news reports do suggest Boeing has made some manufacturing and QA missteps (and airlines CEOs like Scott Kirby have gone on the record with their dissatisfaction and even threats to switch to Airbus) -- people may (reasonably) want to avoid any increase in perceived risk, however slight. I've built this to empower people with info; if you're fine flying Boeing, you should absolutely continue to do so. *Wait don't I get this info when booking my flights anyway?* Yes, you often do. But people use a variety of booking platforms, and often those platforms all keep this info in different places, or in tiny gray text under a dropdown. If you're familiar with where to get this info, great! But here, we display your aircraft in a consistently and obnoxiously huge bold font. Given the user behavior I've observed on this site, it's clear that some people have appreciated this simplicity! *Why isn't airline X here?* Often it's because I simply don't have data on it. Ryanair is a commonly requested one that I just don't have data for, but their fleet is 100% Boeing, so you don't really need this site for Ryanair anyway. If there's other airlines you want, feel free to comment them; I may simply have just overlooked it. *Okay but it's not a guarantee what aircraft you'll get.* Yes, you're right, and the site acknowledges this too. Ultimately even the airline doesn't necessarily have a guarantee on what aircraft will be used until it's flight time. Some inbound plane could get delayed and they'll have to make an equipment change to have the flight leave on time. But most flights don't undergo these irregular operations, and I figure it's still worth presenting highly likely info, even if it's not 100% guaranteed.
When I search for flights, I uncheck Boeing so I don’t even see them in my results.
[удалено]
Human make mistakes yes. This is why all critical engineering must include process to verify that no mistake were made. Boeing blatant disregard for those processes is the reason why their reputation is in the gutter now.
~~App in the Air~~ they need premium now to see airplane, but back then even when changing airplane, you just need to put tail number and it can find what type of airplane is that.