Fly on a 737 MAX? No thank you. Up til recently US domestic aviation has been incredibly safe. But by all accounts Boeing systematically disassembled it's engineering safety culture and replaced it with a make money fast culture. It took 20 years for things to start falling apart, but we're at the beginning of the "unsafe period."

Finding an Airbus in the states is not easy, though. I'd fly American, but their customer service is crap and they started flying their planes to third-world countries for maintenance, so I can't expect them to be that much better.

I work in an industry with conceptually similar safety challenges and some similar solutions, and I think I have a rough idea about the pervasive breakdown of engineering and leadership culture you need to produce an outcome like the original MCAS troubles, which I studied in more detail than the more recent issues. I see in my work processes play out that kill off bad ideas in the stages where they are meant to be weeded out.

Even knowing the extensive QA apparatus and the level of experience in the aviation industry, no, I would personally not.

> Perhaps I'm behaving irrationally due to fear

From a probability perspective, it's absolutely irrational. However that doesn't make your fear any less real to you.

After I went skydiving, the instructor came over to give me a pep talk in order to calm my nerves for what I was about to do—the most dangerous thing I may do all day—drive home. There are plenty of reasons to instinctually fear certain activities, but with rigorous preparation, inspection, and guidelines they can actually be safer than every day activities we grow complacent of.

Boeing's quality control issues have been known and talked about for years, and the initial MCAS problems with the MAX were the consequence of prioritizing certification and pilot training over a more robust redesign. But still, casualties per flight or per mile flown make even the least safe late model commercial airline remarkably reliable. Whenever an issue is discovered, they should ground the affected planes, investigate, resolve, and hopefully improve future quality control and maintenance guidelines.

So to answer your question, I would be comfortable to the extent that I wouldn't give the model of airplane a second thought and will buckle my seatbelt on the taxi ride to the airport next week for my flight. Airplane model unknown.

The interesting thing about statistics is it implies future behaviour based on past behaviour. Up til now commercial aviation has been remarkably safe, per passenger mile traveled. But it appears that Boeing has been shaving off safety procedures to get 737's out of the factory faster. And their suppliers have been similarly pressured, by all accounts. And the carriers don't come to this issue with clean hands, either.

So yes, up til now, commercial aviation has some good numbers. But we're also seeing door plugs fly off, tail assembly bolts improperly fastened, wheels falling off planes as they taxi around the runway, single points of failure on flight control software that cause aircraft to nose into the ground. These are the type of failures you wouldn't see 20 years ago (except for the MD-80, which was designed and manufactured by the same guys who took over Boeing in the 2000s.)

I'm not sure I want to wait to be a statistic. I'm happy to take the train.

> These are the type of failures you wouldn't see 20 years ago

I've been wondering about this. Is there an increase in failure rate or are we just reporting on issues that were not reported on before because this plane model is under extra scrutiny? When did Boeing have those battery issues? That was quite a few years ago and seemed to get forgotten about pretty quickly.

Just make sure not to look up annual deaths per passenger mile traveled by rail.

You're right statistics don't predict the future. They can be informative when trying to understand the effect of a sudden increase in fatalities (referring to MAX8/MCAS here and not MAX9/bolts, of course) and how the result can still be a mode of transportation that is orders of magnitude safer than alternative.

We humans are not very good at risk assessment. Realistically, flying in a 737 MAX is nowhere near as dangerous as making a left turn in a car (in the USA). Yet many of us do that every day without a second thought.

That being said, one underrated health risk is stress. If it alleviates your stress to avoid a particular air frame, you may be preserving your health by eliminating a burdensome worry.

I think this is an excellent point. Don't do things that cause you anxiety, whether or not the worries are grounded in reality.

As Delta says on their flights "We know you have a choice in flying..."

Yes! And I can choose to fly on a plane with a better maintenance/crash record than the 737 Max!

You're comparing apples and oranges. But the customers are comparing apples to apples.

I agree. Personally, I would happily fly on a 737 MAX, flying is something that never caused me stress, and objectively the risks of injury or death are extremely low. I was once on a plane that caught fire over the Atlantic (!), but it was contained and we landed perfectly safely.

However, I do get stressed out by other things, which are objectively speaking not so bad, and which don't bother much other people. That's human nature, that you will be afraid of some things and not others.

OP, if you were already taking psych meds to alleviate your panic, then in your shoes I would probably find a routing with a different aircraft. Whether or not your fears are "rational", they are real, and it is certainly rational and reasonable to look out for your own mental health.

I personally would not.

Without wanting to cause undue anxiety (given it's an anonymous posting), this apparent anonymous posting by a Boeing employee on an aviation forum regarding the 737 Spirit line is pretty shocking (there's two posts, and multiple reporters in the comments are asking to contact the person for interviews):

https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...

It is an irrational fear. I used to have it too but I lost it after flying a lot for work.

Yes, the Boeing safety issues are concerning but the odds of something happening on your flight are astronomically low. It's riskier for you to climb on a ladder to trim your trees or to be on the road driving somewhere. Check out your comparative odds of dying here[0]

The FAA claims that it's Air Traffic Controllers handle 45,000 flights per day [1]. That is only the USA. Any accident makes the news. So, do the math.

One thing that helped me was reading about the engineering that goes into the airframe of the planes. For example, no plane has ever crashed due solely to turbulence. The plane frame and wings are engineered to withstand massive loads, lightning strikes, etc.

[0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-o... [1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers

I have semi-jokingly suggested that air travel is actually too safe.

That is, we accept far far higher risks in other areas of our life because it would be too inconvenient and/or too expensive to solve. How much positive impact would occur if we loosened air travel safety controls?

Caution that I suggest this and a thought exercise; not an actual suggestion.

Air travel just gets more newspaper headlines than “drunk driver kills family in accident”

> How much positive impact would occur if we loosened air travel safety controls?

Almost none? I can't think of what positive impact could possibly result from that.

To play devil's advocate (and let me be explicit: I think this would be a horrible idea) the benefit would be cheaper flights, which would in turn have benefits such as cheaper shipping costs (for air delivery), more people experiencing other cultures (which I believe, perhaps naively, would be a social good of its own), promote remote working (since it's now easier to fly people in for meetups etc), and boost tourism economies.

Increased/cheaper travel would also come with some bad externalities: Increased CO2 emissions, and possibly increased rates of cancer (high altitude is a high-radiation environment - not enough for the occasional flyer to worry about but it can add up). ...and of course the externality that lower safety controls means occasionally one of these more frequent flights will fall out of the sky.

One way to think about these kinds of questions is to reverse it - suppose flying had 10x stricter safety controls than it does today. Would the world be a better place as a result? What would be the downsides?

EDIT: I almost forgot perhaps the most important one: If flying is more convenient/cheaper, even if it's slightly less safe than currently, it is still FAR safer than driving and a shift from people driving to people flying means that relaxing flight safety may actually SAVE lives.

> Would the world be a better place as a result?

Yes, probably. Many places would have e.g. better rail infra if domestic flights were more expensive, and the climate would be better off.

You can argue this is anti-growth or whatever, but this is the same site complaining about RTO initiatives: Perhaps incentivizing personal travel isn't what we want to do or need anyway, and for cargo the air route really doesn't look that good.

This is a really great description of exactly what I’ve mused over in the past.

And to re-iterate: I don’t personally think we should intentionally increase harm in this area, I just find it intriguing where we do and don’t seemingly allow harm

I would, and I have recently. It's certainly not my first choice, but in absolute terms, the risk is still very low. And depending on the route (and, as you mentioned, the possibility that the aircraft can change after booking), it can be pretty hard to entirely avoid unless you just don't fly, or take incredibly inconvenient routings.

How do you know the risk is low? There isn’t that much data on Boeing 737 Max, and one cannot apply data from other models to this specific 737.

> There isn’t that much data

On the other hand, 737MAX planes have flown thousands of times and millions of miles so far.

Yes, I would.

That said, I would pay (have paid, taking a family trip for Spring Break) slightly more for a trip on a different aircraft. It was only ~$20 per ticket and a slightly longer layover to go with a different airline that ran Airbus A320s. NB: I have little fear of flying, I love flying. I'm mostly just running the math.

Similarly, and probably more importantly, my rusty old Pontiac Vibe is a less safe vehicle (for the occupants) than my Toyota Sequoia. And my road bike is less safe for the rider than either. But I still drive the Vibe when I don't need many passengers or tow capacity, because it's way cheaper and less polluting to use, and I'm still really looking forward to commuting on my bike again when spring arrives because that's enormously cheaper and less polluting and also more fun.

I had a crippling fear of flying and I still have anxiety about it. One way I got over it was by learning a lot more about aviation. Now I'm really not afraid of anything happening on a plane short of a. catastrophic failure like a wing snapping off or b. uncontrolled fire in the cockpit. Most other things are recoverable, and those problems are very unlikely.

The flaw that caused the fatal 737 MAX crashes was something that that better trained pilots would have been able to overcome. And this would likely be the case for most problems. The recent door plug blowout did not cause a crash, for example.

So I would not be afraid to fly on a 737 MAX from a major US airline over US territory. It wouldn't be my preference but I wouldn't be afraid to.

Wings snapping off hasn't ever really been a concern for me ever since I saw those early videos of how hard it is to brake a 747 wing. If I had to describe a current fear (which may be as unfounded as the wing one), it would be fire in the cargo hold.

On my last flight I smelled the distinct smell of plastic which was too hot, and it occurred to me that we were two and a half hours out of Kona and still two and a half hours from the west coast. Maybe that was irrational, but it certainly got my fears amped up a little.

It also didn't help that we were in strong turbulence for 4 straight hours and the flight was just plain uncomfortable. I wanted out of that plane in the worst way, LOL.

I quit flying in 2003 because the terrorists won. The TSA made flying horrible.

I always knew I could fly in an emergency. Given the latest revelations, I no longer feel that is the case. I would rather drive… or I won’t be going.

If I had no options, yes. However, since there are plenty of options, I will be avoiding it.

I too have a certain fear or flying, even though I fly quite often. One thing that has actually helped me (and from the comment field, helped a lot of other people too) is this channel: https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot

Not only is it great content, but the way Peter breaks down accidents and goes through all the safety barriers modern airplanes actually have, it has over time lowered my fear of flying.

Sure, no problem. For something like flying, which to a layperson appears really chaotic and uncertain, I rely on statistics. So I spend more time making sure my trip to the airport is safe than I do worrying about the flight.

It also helps (or hurts, depending on your perspective) that I spend enough time perusing AVHerald to appreciate that planes break fairly routinely, and Airbus planes are as well represented as Boeing. Crashes are exceedingly rare.

Yes. I’d prefer to fly on an airbus, but the total risk is still low considering the incident per flight hour rate of commercial aviation.

I have flown on 737 MAX aircraft several times and lived to tell my story. I'm currently looking for a writer to help me with my autobiography describing my flying experience, and hoping for a movie deal while this still has some legs as a news item. In the meantime I'm happy to talk about it -- AMA.

The media is milking it for all it's worth right now, so you better be fast.

I flew on an Alaska 737 MAX out of Portland PDX last year. The doors didn't fall off, the nose wheel stayed attached. But the coke they served (not the whole can, either) came out flat and tasted metallic. That's just one example of many 737 MAX experiences I will describe when I get all of my notes composed into a proper narrative.

> not the whole can, either

Now that right there is a crime, and a damn shame.

Alaska has always given me the whole can, but I don't think I've flown on any of their 737 MAX's yet so it might be a MAX-specific policy. On the 737-990ER we flew on to Hawaii, not only did they give me the entire can of coke, they gave me an extra handful of Biscoff cookies! (to be fair, I was with my 11 year old son, and I think that may have had some influence...)

I would, though I'd prefer other planes if there was an easy alternative.

Sub-par safety in commercial aviation is quite good safety compared to most other areas of life. Not worth worrying too much about unless it gets much worse.

I would avoid 737 MAXes when possible, but if I've already purchased a ticket and there was a last minute plane change to the MAX, I'd go ahead and fly on it.

I think these planes do present a greater-than-usual risk, but the risk is still very, very low.

No I will do my best not to. Too many incidents and yes aviation in general is safe but lost trust in 737 MAX. I would rather cancel a flight last min and be stranded at an airport than get on one knowing I am on one. Frightening thought.

If it was an easy thing to do like checking a box, I'd do it, but honestly I fly often enough that it'd probably be more trouble than I care to go through.

Kayaks lets you exclude specific plane models when searching for flights. It is just a checkbox click

This isn't an answer to your question but I recommend the Lovefly podcast with Paul Tizzard. It really does help with flying.

No thanks.

I will avoid Ryanair, for example. And check all other airlines.

Why? Ryanair has perhaps not the best seats and service offering in general, but they have never had a accident and is considered a very safe airline.

Avoiding the airline with the best safety record in the world in order to avoid their 737-8200s is probably not a statistically sound decision.

Yep, no issue here. The relative chance of dying in a plane is so low compared to car use.

Yes, and I wouldn't even think about it.

The likelihood of me dying in an aviation accident is far lower than me dying while taking a walk to my mailbox. I used to work in aviation and trust the safety processes and culture that it has established in North America. That we continue to uncover these faults tells me that the process is working as intended.

The "fault" wasn't uncovered, tho. It literally caused accidents resulting in death and malfunction.

How many attributed to the model currently in the news? I'm not aware of any fatalities with the 737 MAX 9.

Of course if you want to find some deaths you could broaden your selection to include other 737 MAX variants, any 737, any Boeing airplane, or perhaps even airplanes in general. Hopefully you consider the corresponding safety records in terms of flights or miles flown, perhaps even adjusted for time (modern planes are safer than 1960s planes; the first years of service for a model may be measurably, albeit typically negligibly, less safe than later years)

Thank you for your comment. My opinion is based on informed fact, not emotionally charged rhetoric. I will stand by it.

Honestly, I would be willing to fly, but I also do have a rather risk-affine mindset. So, to me the question is similar to "From a pure risk profile [i.e. ignoring money and regulation issues]: would you go parachuting?", which I would also answer with "yes". I bet that parachuting is much more dangerous than flying on a Boeing 737 MAX.

In short, on a forum where lots of writers could imagine founding a startup, you will find quite some people who are much more risk-affine than what is common in the general population. :-)

> I bet that parachuting is much more dangerous than flying on a Boeing 737 MAX

Most likely. But it's totally worth doing at least once. If nothing else, so you can say you've taken off in a plane more times than you've landed. It's a very unique experience in any case, I totally recommend it.

I would do my best to avoid it

No

Yes.

Fundamentally there are many greater risks out there that I am ignoring. Boeing definitely has problems, but those problems are still less risky than many other things in my life.

+1 Boeing has a lot of work to do to regain trust, but taking a rational risk management approach probably results in me not being worried

I would be interested to hear what all the people who avoid the MAX are doing specifically about food poisoning, their exposure to polluted air, lightning strikes, and attacks from wildlife.

> Perhaps I'm behaving irrationally due to fear

Or there's some other, unrelated reason - might be worth exploring.

I had a huge fear of flying but turns out it was "just" kidney stones - I was afraid of experiencing discomfort during takeoff and landing, but didn't realise it. Once they passed, the discomfort, and thus fear that was caused by it, vanished.

As for Boeing: I'm sure the media is now full of stories that would not be news if not for the recent events. All to woo you into clicking that link.

Personally I have trust in the institutions which make flying the safest form of travel - especially seeing how they already grounded a number of planes due to the incident(s?) recently.

Do you mind if I ask how it is that you had kidney stones so long without realizing it that you mistook it for a fear of flying? I was under the impression that was a rather acute problem...

That's when they start moving. But it takes years to get there, during which there's just gradually increasing discomfort.

It's not localized so I didn't know what was going on until they passed and the improvement manifested itself.

Absolutely not.

I took note of the planes when booking my flights to SXSW the other day and made sure none of them were Boeing. Irrational? Maybe. But also if everyone did that maybe Boeing would take some interest in fixing their broken systems.

If its the cheapest flight going from and to where i need to be - Yeah sure no problem.

I have a far higher chance of dying under a bus / taxi in the airport drop off zone.

I would still fly on a 737 MAX.

I've read about (and watched the Mayday episode) about dozens of air disasters. You can't be 100% safe, but I don't think the MAX is that much riskier either.

Yes. I am not going to buy into the doom and gloom news cycle. If there are actual fatal issues with the planes, oh well. I’ll be scared for a few seconds to a few minutes and then it won’t matter because I will no longer exist. But the likelihood of that happening is low enough that I am not worried.

My answer is that I have. I took a 737 MAX on Christmas Eve. My girlfriend at the time took one the same day as the window blow out incident. If I had to fly somewhere, I'd make sure my will is current, and then just go for it. Who wants to live forever anyway?

I just flew on 737 MAX 8 two times in the past 2 weeks and (surprise) I survived. But I have to admit I was a bit nervous. Things you do for a $50 flight (including luggage) to the Canary Islands. Thanks RyanAir...

I talked about it to the people sitting next to me, and they seemed completely unaware of the news about it. In fact, they weren't even aware about what kind of plane they boarded. I suppose a lot of people don't care at all, and trust in airline control.

I would, I’d even take the seat next to the plug. Probably wouldn’t put my kid next to it though.