Also I'd contact your favorite airlines and demand that they retire their MAX planes.

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-consumer-...

The 737MAX is not going away. There are about 1400 of them flying and another 6000 orders. Boeing obviously has some serious quality problems that need to get fixed, but since the grounding in 2019, the MAX has done something like 1.5 million flights with no fatalities. This is worth fixing, but it's not dangerous enough to change your travel plans. You're way more likely to die from COVID you caught on the plane than because the plane was unsafe.

> it's not dangerous enough to change your travel plans.

They keep having new critical safety issues. :(

That latest one only didn't end up with fatalities due to luck, it could just as easily have gone the other way.

Absolutely. There have been several airline explosive decompressions in the past 50 years. The fatal ones have each had one fatality, even with crazy damage to the plane (look up Aloha 243) If you figure this incident "should" have had one fatality, if you figure 100 passengers per flight, that's a 1/150,000,000 chance of dying. Your odds of death are way worse on the drive to the airport than from this.

k, now calculate the odds for "737 Max series planes" vs the rest, then make your choice. ;)

> calculate the odds for "737 Max series planes"

Those planes have also flown millions of miles without incident. This is a low-frequency statistics game; the signal is presently constrained to the type 9.

> There have been several airline explosive decompressions in the past 50 years. The fatal ones have each had one fatality, even with crazy damage to the plane (look up Aloha 243)

Uhhm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611

> Fatalities: 225

> I'd contact your favorite airlines and demand that they retire their MAX planes

This isn't happening. Demand would swell well before price cuts made those planes uneconomical.

But cross-reference that with OpenSecrets to see if it's even worth pursuing. If they're in office, they're probably taking bribes from Boeing.

> cross-reference that with OpenSecrets to see if it's even worth pursuing

I'm sympathetic to civic disengagement from nihilism, apathy, laziness or even ignorance. What I don't understand is proselytising it.

> in office, they're probably taking bribes from Boeing

This is bunk, even if we forget that campaign donations aren't bribes.

> This is bunk, even if we forget that campaign donations aren't bribes

Are you sure? A quick search seems to indicate that Boeing certainly makes campaign donations

> quick search seems to indicate that Boeing certainly makes campaign donations

Of course they do [1]. They're a defence contractor. They give to a lot of electeds. But far from every elected. (I'd be shocked if they weren't giving to everyone on those subcommittees.)

What's bunk is believing someone receving $5k from Boeing is in their pocket. They're not. They've likely never spoken. This is all nonsense used to justify inactivity. Which is baffling, since it seems to require as much effort as (albeit less social interaction than) engagmeent.

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/boeing-co/recipients?id=d00...

What do you call giving government officials lots of money to take anticompetitive actions that personally benefit you that they would otherwise never do and also have a clear conflict of interest with the purpose of their elected position?

I call it representative democracy.

representing only those with the most money at the expense of literally everyone else

This just isn't true. It's a weird fantasy of helplessness which breeds inaction. Our system is imperfect sure but not broken. This level of apathy is a choice and promoting it is harmful.

> giving government officials lots of money to take anticompetitive actions that personally benefit you

Give a specific case. Because almost all of them, with Boeing, involve on one hand a $5k donation, and on the other hand, a factory in the district. Guess which one gets you an urgent meeting with the Congressman.

Tech, in particular, has this cartoonish totem of how politics works. This usually ends hilariously. But in this case, it’s being used to justify inaction, which is conveniently self fulfilling.

Take care - Poe's law applies to voting and civic engagement suppression tactics as well (of which this is a prime example.)

Subject: Concerns Regarding the FAA Exemption Request by Boeing for the 737 MAX Aircraft

[YOUR NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS]

[DATE]

[REPRESENTATIVE NAME] [REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE ADDRESS]

Dear [REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR] [REPRESENTATIVE LAST NAME],

I am reaching out to you as a concerned constituent from [CITY], [STATE], to address a pressing issue that has significant implications for the safety and reliability of our nation's aviation sector. My concerns center on the recent exemption request by Boeing for its 737 MAX aircraft, which is particularly alarming in light of the explosive decompression event that occurred last Friday.

The 737 MAX has a controversial history, marked by two catastrophic accidents that led to a global grounding of the fleet. Despite modifications and enhancements to address these issues, the recent exemption request by Boeing raises questions about the aircraft's safety standards. The exemption, if granted, could potentially allow Boeing to bypass certain regulatory requirements, which I fear might compromise passenger safety.

The incident last Friday, involving an explosive decompression event, is a stark reminder of the unforeseen risks inherent in aviation. This occurrence underscores the need for stringent safety measures and regulations that should not be compromised or waived. It is imperative that any exemptions to standard aviation safety procedures be scrutinized with utmost diligence to prevent any compromise on safety.

As my representative in Congress, I urge you to closely monitor this situation and take appropriate actions to ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not grant exemptions that could endanger public safety. It is crucial that the FAA maintains its rigorous standards to safeguard the lives of passengers and crew.

Our priority must be the safety and well-being of everyone who flies. I trust that you will consider this matter with the seriousness it deserves and represent the concerns of your constituents in this crucial matter.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to your response and the actions you will take regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]

> take appropriate actions to ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not grant exemptions that could endanger public safety

Appreciate your contributing this. Some modest critique: I would be concerned about this language going to GOP members, as it sounds like a bias for regulation, which means you’re not one of their primary voters. (Same for “our priority must be the safety and well-being of everyone who flies,” which leaves out the economic benefits of flying to everyone on the ground.)

You’re also focussing on the exemption as the root cause to an event with an unfinished investigation. Unless you think your member’s staffers were genuinely unaware of this exemption, it doesn’t add anything to mention it.

Finally, form letters can be powerful. But they’re also dehumanising. You’re looking for the coordinator, as opposed to a sea of independent complaints coming in from your members. Better than nothing. But a quick paragraph in your own voice is more powerful