News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as Extras.

Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by ajnin on Thursday March 21, 2019 @09:03AM (#19451786)
> Boeing charges extra, for example, for a backup fire extinguisher in the cargo hold. Past incidents have shown that a single extinguishing system may not be enough to put out flames that spread rapidly through the plane.

Well that's something that is not comforting to read. Charging extra for comfier seats, I can understand, but charging extra for features that might be the difference between life and death for 100+ persons, that's just sick and criminal in my mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by veryworried on Thursday March 21, 2019 @09:53AM (#19452317)
What’s more criminal is not buying the extra safety features. Creating safety features, while important, is not free. Someone has to pay for it, no matter how many lives they save. Hard to fault Boeing there.

It’s like side air bags in cars. Some have them, some don’t, but if you want them you will pay an extra 2 grand as each airbag unit is easily a grand each, and must be replaced completely if it ever deploys. If you buy your teenager a car you can decide if you will pay extra for those safety features.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by RankingMember on Thursday March 21, 2019 @09:56AM (#19452349)
Sure, safety features aren't free, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. If that raises your cost, you increase the cost of the plane, not offer it as an optional add-on.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by veryworried on Thursday March 21, 2019 @10:01AM (#19452420)
Raising the cost per plane is not so simple of a solution in some markets, and may make it very difficult to stay competitive, putting you out of business there entirely. Also, not all planes might be purchased for passenger travel, maybe a plane is used for package delivery and doesn’t need to come with so much extra safety. Who knows.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by RankingMember on Thursday March 21, 2019 @10:28AM (#19452705)
In a world where air travel is remarkably safe, throwing in the extra fire extinguisher that may make the difference between a near miss and a tragedy seems like it'd pay for itself many times over versus the alternative even if you just consider the PR impact.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by mr_overalls on Thursday March 21, 2019 @10:25AM (#19452677)
My thoughts, too. Certain core safety features should be included by default, to avoid the possibility of an uninformed buyer dooming the people flying their airline.

Auto manufacturers don't make an engine compartment firewall optional, or sell full-strength seatbelts as an upgrade.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by everdev on Thursday March 21, 2019 @10:10AM (#19452512)
But where do you draw the line? Optional tempered glass? Optional seat belts? Optional ABS?

I think the idea is that some safety features are so important they shouldn't be optimal.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by tyingq on Thursday March 21, 2019 @10:25AM (#19452682)
" Optional tempered glass? Optional seat belts? Optional ABS?"

Not arguing against safety, and this doesn't relate to aircraft at all, but your examples are interesting.

Pretty sure all three of those were optional when they were new things. The pattern of being optional on luxury vehicles, then standard on luxury models / optional on normal models, and finally, standard on all vehicles...is common.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by jpovenden on Thursday March 21, 2019 @11:35AM (#19453526)
when you buy a car do you just buy a tank or apc?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by farzadb82 on Saturday March 23, 2019 @02:08PM (#19471556)
I'm sorry, but the safety features in question here were software upgrades. The incremental cost to Boeing to add it to every aircraft during manufacturing would be negligible.

In my view it should be criminal to withhold such safety features for profit.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by cja on Thursday March 21, 2019 @09:37AM (#19452115)
Road vehicle manufacturers also charge extra for safety features.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by RankingMember on Thursday March 21, 2019 @09:57AM (#19452364)
The person who will be occupying the vehicle gets to make those decisions. Unless you're buying your own 737, you don't get to make that choice.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by jsiepkes on Thursday March 21, 2019 @09:48AM (#19452263)
Where to begin? 1) That doesn't make it acceptable 2) My car doesn't fit 200 people 3) I can smash a window and jump out of my car if it is on fire.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by Cyph0n on Thursday March 21, 2019 @09:56AM (#19452360)
I also find that extremely strange, but maybe I'm in the minority. I think Toyota has safety features standard in all trims.

Regardless, the safety requirements in planes are much more stringent than in road vehicles.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by samueloph on Thursday March 21, 2019 @09:46PM (#19459007)
why is it becoming a trend to make idiot analogies that are clearly useless as an argument (because they aren't the same thing) here in hackernews?!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by cjrp on Friday March 22, 2019 @05:10AM (#19460707)
I don't think it's as simple as the article has made out. Many different airlines spec these planes for many different types of flight, and types of cargo - that's why features are optional. E.g. if an airline operates many routes on which the hold is likely to contain a high proportion of hazardous material, they can spec the additional fire suppression system. Even with a single system, the plane's certification will require that it can contain a hold fire for {X} mins (long enough to allow the plane to land and evacuate).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by alexis_fr on Friday March 22, 2019 @08:00AM (#19461684)
Isn’t it a security feature linked to a max load or a category of cargo? It could be a good reason: “Mixing cargo and luggage is only allowed on planes with a secondary extinguisher” => We sell the secondary, not because security is optional, but because we sell the ability to do something more with the plane.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as ... by wbrasky on Thursday March 21, 2019 @11:42AM (#19453646)
Welcome to capitalism.
[ Parent | on HN ]