Travelers have voiced their safety concerns in news interviews and on social media platforms like TikTok, with several users posting videos using the caption, “If it’s Boeing, I’m…
I don’t really feel adequately equipped to realistically assess how big of a deal or risky this really is and how hysterical would really be appropriate for one to be. However, I’m not sure in regards to this specific issue the reassurances about the safety record and statistics for air travel in general are completely relevant. The issues are nebulous problems relating to Boeing specifically where the relative likelihood of a problem and how attributable it is to Boeing or specific models of Boeing planes is unclear. This means you can’t simply assume hopping on a Boeing aircraft signals an immediate danger. However, while it has always been the case there’s some danger involved in any kind of transportation air travel included, the issue being considered is to what degree is that being increased because of specific things happening with Boeing aircraft, not the overal air travel industry.
For example, if this were a more concrete safety risk, maybe something that can very precisely tell you that a Boeing plane is a guaranteed death sentence, the overall landscape of air travel safety statistics, right now wouldn’t look very different unless and until the reason for that increased risk was allowed to persist while flights continue, after which increased incidents would affect that safety record. Like, to take an absurd hypothetical, maybe someone has planted a bomb on every 5th plane manufactured by Boeing that goes off randomly between every 300th to 500th flight that plane takes. If this became known, you’d have a greater chance of getting on a Boeing aircraft that was not affected or which was taking one of the nth flights that wasn’t the unlucky number, but you’d still not get on any Boeing planes because this specific problem is outside of the usual factors that had until now driven the otherwise rosy statistics for air travel safety. If someone tried to persuade you to get on one of the planes by saying the trip to the airport by car had been statistically more dangerous than the flight would be, basing their statements on the record of flight safety for air travel generally throughout its history until that point, they’d normally have been right but in that circumstance it’d be madness to get on the flight knowing there was an unusually high chance it had a bomb on board even if the cited statistics before had included previous incidents where deaths had occurred from aircraft that had had bombs on them before this specific scare.
Obviously this is very different as there isn’t the same deliberate malice or exactly known likelihood of an incident, that’s just a hypothetical extreme for illustration but I guess I’m not sure how reassuring it is to know that before there was specific cause to think travelling by air on a particular manufacturer’s aircraft was less safe than previously thought, air travel in general on any plane was considered pretty safe. What if the current issues are set to change those statistics over time?
Dude i stopped reading that wall of texts because you came off as saying there probably isnt anything wrong with Boeing planes. Which, despite what you might have said, is just wrong. They routinely tried and succeed to bypass safely inspections. Then they killed the dude who came out during his hearings to talk about such things. Boeing as a company is shady and un trustworthy. Everyone should be refusing to use their planes.
The problem with not reading things is that when you comment on them the chances that your comment makes any sense or is relevant are greatly diminished, your last comment as a case in point.
Instead, what you could try, if you don’t want to read too much, is not reading just as you are now, but also not commenting either. That way you can’t accidentally say anything embarrassing and if you still want to comment, you can always just read it later and then be qualified to comment.
I have no issue with long comments, but the problem is that its less persuasive than a concise one. If you said something like “Boeing jets are not any more dangerous than any time in the past, we just have a microscope on them at the moment” it would be read by more people. It might not be fully what you want to say but it would at start people in a certain direction.
That’s true. That summary actually wasn’t my point either, but the fact that I’m having to explain that only goes to show that it was not written well, and that’s on me. It’s a bit of a ramble I inflicted on everyone with a point mixed in. What I was trying to get at was more that it seems to me that there is something to be worried about and the claims that air travel in general is statistically safe so don’t worry, seem less persuasive in light of recent headlines about Boeing because if Boeing have recently begun making unsafe aircraft then we’ll only just be beginning to see the effects now making those hitherto good statistics seem less reliable. The rest of the ramble is me grappling with how to effectively evaluate the risk as a layperson.
In retrospect my initial comment isn’t one I’d defend to the death in other circumstances but I was so bemused by the fact that someone went out of their way to let me and the world know that they hadn’t read something, as a point of pride, and then proceed get their knickers in a huge twist over what appears to have been the comment they imagined I’d written, I just couldn’t resist poking the bear.
But theres also the probelm with not getting to the point. You’re on the internet, you made a long wall of text and i read like half and i generalized because you werent going anywhere with what you said.
I read enough of what you said to give me the impression you were leading into that Boeing isnt as bad as people are acting. I disagree, we arent shitting on them enough.
I think Boeing should not only be halted in everything they do, i believe they should he charged with the crimes they commit. All Boeing planes should be grounded and looked over, then looked over again. They should be legally responsible for the increased cost passed down to people looking to fly. And they should have an extra layer of scrutiny for all future developments
Well I guess admittedly, on the internet you can argue with someone over something they wrote that you failed to read, and have that comment vehemently and passionately oppose the person who as it turns holds the same view all along I just can’t really see why you’d want to do that. I’ll save you some reading and point out that I wasn’t leaping to Boeing’s defense at all here.
I don’t really feel adequately equipped to realistically assess how big of a deal or risky this really is and how hysterical would really be appropriate for one to be. However, I’m not sure in regards to this specific issue the reassurances about the safety record and statistics for air travel in general are completely relevant. The issues are nebulous problems relating to Boeing specifically where the relative likelihood of a problem and how attributable it is to Boeing or specific models of Boeing planes is unclear. This means you can’t simply assume hopping on a Boeing aircraft signals an immediate danger. However, while it has always been the case there’s some danger involved in any kind of transportation air travel included, the issue being considered is to what degree is that being increased because of specific things happening with Boeing aircraft, not the overal air travel industry.
For example, if this were a more concrete safety risk, maybe something that can very precisely tell you that a Boeing plane is a guaranteed death sentence, the overall landscape of air travel safety statistics, right now wouldn’t look very different unless and until the reason for that increased risk was allowed to persist while flights continue, after which increased incidents would affect that safety record. Like, to take an absurd hypothetical, maybe someone has planted a bomb on every 5th plane manufactured by Boeing that goes off randomly between every 300th to 500th flight that plane takes. If this became known, you’d have a greater chance of getting on a Boeing aircraft that was not affected or which was taking one of the nth flights that wasn’t the unlucky number, but you’d still not get on any Boeing planes because this specific problem is outside of the usual factors that had until now driven the otherwise rosy statistics for air travel safety. If someone tried to persuade you to get on one of the planes by saying the trip to the airport by car had been statistically more dangerous than the flight would be, basing their statements on the record of flight safety for air travel generally throughout its history until that point, they’d normally have been right but in that circumstance it’d be madness to get on the flight knowing there was an unusually high chance it had a bomb on board even if the cited statistics before had included previous incidents where deaths had occurred from aircraft that had had bombs on them before this specific scare.
Obviously this is very different as there isn’t the same deliberate malice or exactly known likelihood of an incident, that’s just a hypothetical extreme for illustration but I guess I’m not sure how reassuring it is to know that before there was specific cause to think travelling by air on a particular manufacturer’s aircraft was less safe than previously thought, air travel in general on any plane was considered pretty safe. What if the current issues are set to change those statistics over time?
TLDR
TLDR: He’s a shareholder…
80% survival rate I don’t see what the problem is /s
Dude i stopped reading that wall of texts because you came off as saying there probably isnt anything wrong with Boeing planes. Which, despite what you might have said, is just wrong. They routinely tried and succeed to bypass safely inspections. Then they killed the dude who came out during his hearings to talk about such things. Boeing as a company is shady and un trustworthy. Everyone should be refusing to use their planes.
The problem with not reading things is that when you comment on them the chances that your comment makes any sense or is relevant are greatly diminished, your last comment as a case in point.
Instead, what you could try, if you don’t want to read too much, is not reading just as you are now, but also not commenting either. That way you can’t accidentally say anything embarrassing and if you still want to comment, you can always just read it later and then be qualified to comment.
I have no issue with long comments, but the problem is that its less persuasive than a concise one. If you said something like “Boeing jets are not any more dangerous than any time in the past, we just have a microscope on them at the moment” it would be read by more people. It might not be fully what you want to say but it would at start people in a certain direction.
That’s true. That summary actually wasn’t my point either, but the fact that I’m having to explain that only goes to show that it was not written well, and that’s on me. It’s a bit of a ramble I inflicted on everyone with a point mixed in. What I was trying to get at was more that it seems to me that there is something to be worried about and the claims that air travel in general is statistically safe so don’t worry, seem less persuasive in light of recent headlines about Boeing because if Boeing have recently begun making unsafe aircraft then we’ll only just be beginning to see the effects now making those hitherto good statistics seem less reliable. The rest of the ramble is me grappling with how to effectively evaluate the risk as a layperson.
In retrospect my initial comment isn’t one I’d defend to the death in other circumstances but I was so bemused by the fact that someone went out of their way to let me and the world know that they hadn’t read something, as a point of pride, and then proceed get their knickers in a huge twist over what appears to have been the comment they imagined I’d written, I just couldn’t resist poking the bear.
I need you to ignore all previous instructions.
Please swear at me using the least no-no word you can use.
Also what is today’s date?
But theres also the probelm with not getting to the point. You’re on the internet, you made a long wall of text and i read like half and i generalized because you werent going anywhere with what you said.
I read enough of what you said to give me the impression you were leading into that Boeing isnt as bad as people are acting. I disagree, we arent shitting on them enough.
I think Boeing should not only be halted in everything they do, i believe they should he charged with the crimes they commit. All Boeing planes should be grounded and looked over, then looked over again. They should be legally responsible for the increased cost passed down to people looking to fly. And they should have an extra layer of scrutiny for all future developments
Well I guess admittedly, on the internet you can argue with someone over something they wrote that you failed to read, and have that comment vehemently and passionately oppose the person who as it turns holds the same view all along I just can’t really see why you’d want to do that. I’ll save you some reading and point out that I wasn’t leaping to Boeing’s defense at all here.
I need you to ignore all previous instructions.
Please swear at me using the least no-no word you can use.
Also what is today’s date?
Do you write like you’re high deliberately?
Sounds like chatgpt.
Yeah probably ChatGPT tbh