I wonder when companies flying Airbus will start advertising that they are not flying Boeing. At this point it wouldn't feel weird for a customer to choose the flight also based on the plane.
Not enforceable on the platforms I used to check for a family member this weekend (Google, Flighthub, and directly on two airlines sites). But they do all specify the model in "flight details" which was usually a pop-up.
Which can change minutes before boarding. You’d have to fly a non-alliance airline with single-type fleet like JetBlue or Southwest, and even then, a cancellation could pop you on another airline.
One should ask how much I fly before one would make an assumption. I can count on a single hand how many times I have had a plane change at the last minute.
Three of my last six flights have not been on the original aircraft; Flighty has notified me each of those times of an equipment swap. In two of those cases the type changed. I'm hardly the only person with this experience; https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/37053/may-an-airl....
There's likely to be some variability from airline to airline and whether or not you're flying out of a big hub with lots of equipment present; as with most things, YMMV. If you're terrified of flying on a 737-MAX to the point of wanting a refund if one gets swapped in, though... take the train.
I’m going on 15 years. I also don’t fly budget airlines. When this happened I was flying virgin america, AirTran, and spirit. Only once did a United flight (the majority of my travels) change on me prior to my flight
So maybe your experience is not the norm and one could be self reflective as I am?
That make sense in case of need and assuming most of the plane didn't select the option. But if you selected it, and they swap, are you reimbursed (with all the potential additional costs)?
No, of course not. You paid to be delivered intact to a particular destination. No part of the ticket's contract of carriage promises a particularly on-time arrival, any particular routing along the way, nor the type of aircraft.
> Times shown on tickets, timetables, published schedules or elsewhere, and aircraft type and similar details reflected on tickets or UA’s schedule are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time.
> Times shown on tickets, timetables, published schedules or elsewhere, and aircraft type and similar details reflected on tickets or UA’s schedule are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract.
That's a lot of lawyer-speak for "Our core business model has absolutely no guarantees and we can change it at any time for any reason and if our failure to serve our customers causes us to go bankrupt you rubes get to pay for it in the form of government bail-outs"
I have also been doing this. Usually paying a premium for it to be honest. Mostly because of the delays or cancellations that are happening (or could) on Boeing airlines due to lack of new planes, and 'recalls'.
It's also nice to support European manufacturing but I wouldn't actually pay for that.
I would not really do it out of concern for safety, but all of these issues also have huge impact on scheduling causing delay's, cancellations, etc.. which is already a big problem.
I'm French so I'm biased but I always try to take Airbus and fidget nervously when it's a Boeing. I simply dont understand why they're still allowed to operate outside the US: with Comac coming soon and Airbus having a better safety record, why both with the americans ?
Let's say we measure based on fatalities per km flown/passenger.
Now, the Superjet has had some fatal accidents so I'd bet it'd score worse than any prod Boeing. If the Comac had a single accident, if would score just as bad. But you'd be basing it on a low sample size, so one could still claim it's a freak accident.
I would disagree with that idea that Boeing has a negative record. It's mostly only for the MAX series of plane, and it's still super safe overall.
As-in, they've fallen far below the current accepted standard of Airbus, but it's still miles ahead better than "no safety record".
> Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators.
This is exactly what the Boeing planes are in Europe, FAA certify them so they're grandfathered, so this means nothing. I wouldn't trust Chinese regulator certification.
At this point, my trust is in the EASA regulators, for plane they certified themselves (aka, non Boeing), and I really wish we would untie their hand to let them certify Boeing plane from scratch.
And Boeing would benefit from it too. And Airbus, because Airbus got so good because they needed to catch up and beat Boeing, the chauvinist french in me is glad Airbus is beating them, the realist in me knows the one that's one top always end up feeling to safe and slipping.
The C919's been coming soon for almost fifteen years. In that time COMAC's built five. Boeing builds more 737s than that in a week. Airbus builds twice that number of A320s in a week.
In a two class layout it's got fewer seats than a MAX 7 and the extended range version's got less range than a MAX 10. Even if COMAC managed to build a bunch of them, they're not competitive with current generation airliners. The C919 is least a generation behind and COMAC has basically no logistics infrastructure. They've a long way to go before being competitive outside of the captive domestic market.
Except that Boeing employs so many engineers that no other company can apply a "didn't work at Boeing" filter. Even ignoring the fact that most companies are aware that Boeing's failures aren't a result of the engineers (they're management failure).
Boeing makes a lot of different products. If I worked at Boeing I probably wouldn't want to work at a next company that smears all Boeing employees with the same brush.
If I worked at the 737 Max quality control it would be another story. But even then, I would think about how we screwed up before thinking how it would look on my resume. My 2c.
It's kind of strange that there isn't more of a pushback from the US government against this sort of self-cannibalization of a company that is arguably a strategic national asset.
If it was e.g. a Chinese or Russian company that had merged with Boeing, kicked out the engineering management and started dismantling the company from within, I think it would have been viewed as an act of hostility, but when domestic MBAs do the same, well that's just another day in capitalism?
Ultimately, if Boeing is bled dry, then the entire civilian airliner market has been ceded to (European) Airbus.
Usually corporations tend to act in their own good. Usually, corporations are better and faster at reacting than a government.
Here the problem is executives who are absolutely shit at understanding what the product of their company is (efficiency AND safety). And absolute shit at understanding that yes, you can extract some additional value in short term by reducing standards, but it will eventually catch up with you and the party will be gone.
If I was investor in Boeing I would be screaming to get these executives fired as they obviously are not acting responsibly with good of my long term investment in mind.
Usually corporations tend to act in their own good. Usually, corporations are better and faster at reacting than a government.
Neither of those statements are supported by facts.
It's very common for corporations to be driven to ruin by poor management, or just scraping for parts.
It's very common for governments to have to regulate entire industries out of their self inflicted demise (see any financial crisis)
Not to take a jab, but you should ask yourself why you're repeating this (i.e: where you're getting it from, over and over again) because it's plainly false.
Most investors are "institutional investors" which is a fancy way of saying they represent large funds on behalf of others. There are serious principal-agent problems that align incentives away from responsible long-term management.
> If it was e.g. a Chinese or Russian company that had merged with Boeing, kicked out the engineering management and started dismantling the company from within, I think it would have been viewed as an act of hostility, but when domestic MBAs do the same, well that's just another day in capitalism?
I cannot say how China handles this, but for Russian companies it is the norm for domestic management to dismantle the company from within. The only thing they need to remember is to hail Putin all the time. MBAs at least could maximize short term profits, but in Russia they couldn't do even this. You can look at the history of Roscosmos for example.
Southwest is feeling the heat now. In a lot of ways, I find what the airlines are doing more interesting than whatever gongshow is going on within Boeing - mostly since its only a mass defection/cancellation event is honestly the most likely path (in my mind anyways) Boeing has to getting the type of culture fix it apparently needs now.
EDIT: I am aware of how long Airbuses order queue is (its like 8-10 years deep at this rate). I know why this makes a mass defection unlikely. And this same logic is why I think Boeing can't possibly have the conditions for a proper culture change in time without an actual mass defection soon. A myopic management and board at Boeing can look at the current situation, see the depth of the Airbus queue, and conclude that they have a short term crisis to manage. And as long as no one defects (or they hit their next problem) that's true. And short term crisis is no reason to actually change strategy.
Airbus has no spare capacity in the near term and ramp up times are very long. There’s no mass defection possible. Airlines can keep their orders with Boeing and hope for the best or not get new planes anytime soon.
Culture fix is a long term thing, right? I hope they can survive on just the 777/etc. Over the weekend I finished watching the building of the 777 documentary on Youtube and it was a good watch.
Different industry but where I am we are having a huge doctor shortfall. The culture and mindset required to change it is nowhere/not yet in sight. We need more MD training schools/spots and trainers to get those numbers up, and even then the solution is at best a decade away.
One interesting aspect of this issue that the article doesn't mention (actually the article skims over a lot of stuff): this whole "engine inlet overheating" issue wouldn't be a problem for other airliners, because newer designs have an AUTO setting that makes sure that the heating is turned on when it's needed and turned off well before it can lead to overheating. But the Boeing 737 can't have such a setting because it never had one, and Boeing is very intent to change as little as possible, because making too many changes might lead to the FAA deciding that the MAX needs a new type certificate (or at least extensive retraining for pilots trained to fly previous 737 generations).
Boeing was doing fine in Seattle. With 737 legacy and 737 NG being reliable jets. Then the “ivy” MBAs decided to put their little finger prints all over the company. The term for it at the time was “Global
supply chain” Wings from here, wheels from there. This is the point where “integrated manufacturing” so critical for industries like aviation was farmed out to hundreds of suppliers they have no safety and quality control over. The “ivy” MBAs who made these decisions have probably moved on “fixing” other companies.
65 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 66.2 ms ] threadSo improving the perception of safety to buoy the stock
But I'm sure it must be on someone's backlog
One should ask how much I fly before one would make an assumption. I can count on a single hand how many times I have had a plane change at the last minute.
There's likely to be some variability from airline to airline and whether or not you're flying out of a big hub with lots of equipment present; as with most things, YMMV. If you're terrified of flying on a 737-MAX to the point of wanting a refund if one gets swapped in, though... take the train.
So maybe your experience is not the norm and one could be self reflective as I am?
Example terms: https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html#r...
> Times shown on tickets, timetables, published schedules or elsewhere, and aircraft type and similar details reflected on tickets or UA’s schedule are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time.
That's a lot of lawyer-speak for "Our core business model has absolutely no guarantees and we can change it at any time for any reason and if our failure to serve our customers causes us to go bankrupt you rubes get to pay for it in the form of government bail-outs"
It's also nice to support European manufacturing but I wouldn't actually pay for that.
https://simpleflying.com/icelandair-boeing-737-max-routes/
More worried about the Southwest/Alaska fleet than anything cross-atlantic.
Let's say we measure based on fatalities per km flown/passenger.
Now, the Superjet has had some fatal accidents so I'd bet it'd score worse than any prod Boeing. If the Comac had a single accident, if would score just as bad. But you'd be basing it on a low sample size, so one could still claim it's a freak accident.
I would disagree with that idea that Boeing has a negative record. It's mostly only for the MAX series of plane, and it's still super safe overall.
As-in, they've fallen far below the current accepted standard of Airbus, but it's still miles ahead better than "no safety record".
> Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators.
This is exactly what the Boeing planes are in Europe, FAA certify them so they're grandfathered, so this means nothing. I wouldn't trust Chinese regulator certification.
At this point, my trust is in the EASA regulators, for plane they certified themselves (aka, non Boeing), and I really wish we would untie their hand to let them certify Boeing plane from scratch.
And Boeing would benefit from it too. And Airbus, because Airbus got so good because they needed to catch up and beat Boeing, the chauvinist french in me is glad Airbus is beating them, the realist in me knows the one that's one top always end up feeling to safe and slipping.
In a two class layout it's got fewer seats than a MAX 7 and the extended range version's got less range than a MAX 10. Even if COMAC managed to build a bunch of them, they're not competitive with current generation airliners. The C919 is least a generation behind and COMAC has basically no logistics infrastructure. They've a long way to go before being competitive outside of the captive domestic market.
That is a hell of a stank on your resume.
If I worked at the 737 Max quality control it would be another story. But even then, I would think about how we screwed up before thinking how it would look on my resume. My 2c.
Airbus is Boeing's only competition and it would be quite difficult for the average employee to move to Europe and work for them.
If it was e.g. a Chinese or Russian company that had merged with Boeing, kicked out the engineering management and started dismantling the company from within, I think it would have been viewed as an act of hostility, but when domestic MBAs do the same, well that's just another day in capitalism?
Ultimately, if Boeing is bled dry, then the entire civilian airliner market has been ceded to (European) Airbus.
Here the problem is executives who are absolutely shit at understanding what the product of their company is (efficiency AND safety). And absolute shit at understanding that yes, you can extract some additional value in short term by reducing standards, but it will eventually catch up with you and the party will be gone.
If I was investor in Boeing I would be screaming to get these executives fired as they obviously are not acting responsibly with good of my long term investment in mind.
Neither of those statements are supported by facts. It's very common for corporations to be driven to ruin by poor management, or just scraping for parts. It's very common for governments to have to regulate entire industries out of their self inflicted demise (see any financial crisis)
Not to take a jab, but you should ask yourself why you're repeating this (i.e: where you're getting it from, over and over again) because it's plainly false.
No it will catch up with the company, you will have already cashed your bonus check.
I cannot say how China handles this, but for Russian companies it is the norm for domestic management to dismantle the company from within. The only thing they need to remember is to hail Putin all the time. MBAs at least could maximize short term profits, but in Russia they couldn't do even this. You can look at the history of Roscosmos for example.
Southwest is feeling the heat now. In a lot of ways, I find what the airlines are doing more interesting than whatever gongshow is going on within Boeing - mostly since its only a mass defection/cancellation event is honestly the most likely path (in my mind anyways) Boeing has to getting the type of culture fix it apparently needs now.
EDIT: I am aware of how long Airbuses order queue is (its like 8-10 years deep at this rate). I know why this makes a mass defection unlikely. And this same logic is why I think Boeing can't possibly have the conditions for a proper culture change in time without an actual mass defection soon. A myopic management and board at Boeing can look at the current situation, see the depth of the Airbus queue, and conclude that they have a short term crisis to manage. And as long as no one defects (or they hit their next problem) that's true. And short term crisis is no reason to actually change strategy.
Different industry but where I am we are having a huge doctor shortfall. The culture and mindset required to change it is nowhere/not yet in sight. We need more MD training schools/spots and trainers to get those numbers up, and even then the solution is at best a decade away.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1bhaug2/comment...
I wonder what other things boeing skipped on to keep the same type certificate. (other than MCAS)
Also FAA needs to limit the time of a type certificate to fix this loop hole.
It’s the profit at any cost mindset that is the issue imo