Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is absolutely not something you want to happen. This could have devastating effects and I think enough is enough and the government needs to step in and take over running the airlines. It's too important to leave gold hoarding dragons in charge of it.
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
597 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59656 readers
3028 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Boeing is the only company actually trying to reach their net zero target. Once no Boeing plane are flying anymore that's it, no more CO2 emissions
Silver lining: less flights booked means less emissions for the environment.
Iirc the increase in people driving instead of flying due to 911, lead to more accidents and deaths. :(
That's not great... I can only hope more people opt for trains instead this time.
If we had high speed rail, I’d absolutely love to take a train to just go places, but cross country trains in the US take absolutely forever. If you aren’t in a hurry, sure, great option, cheap, but doesn’t really work well for vacations or emergencies or whatever when you have very limited time.
For example, Chicago to Seattle takes 46 hours by train but 30 hours by car. Even with stops for food, gas, and bathroom, even staying somewhere for the night, you aren’t adding 16 hours on.
https://www.amtrak.com/empire-builder-train
We really need to invest more in high speed rail.. like everywhere here. Until then, unfortunately, I doubt people will shift that way overall.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I think the problem is that this will likely lead to more driving instead of flying.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Maybe even a return to train travel.
I hope that prompts more funding into Amtrak if people do opt for that!
load more comments
(1 replies)
That’s not a silver lining at all. Jets are actually very fuel efficient compared to driving when they’re full of passengers.
One less plane in the air could potentially mean 300+ more cars on the road. Not a great outcome.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Having the public lose trust in the safety of flying is something I absolutely want to happen. This will have devastating effects on carbon emissions, and push more people (and governments) towards trains.
Devastating is a bit of an exaggeration with it being responsible for a whooping 3% (at most) of emissions and arguably helping raise the albedo a bit with their contrails.
So it would help a bit, it wouldn't be a game changer though (except if you live near an airport, sound is another pollution that's often ignored).
load more comments
(7 replies)
The government has already stepped in several times. If you’re in the mood to get mad, read up on the results of these interventions. Basically, Boeing was almost forced to deal with actual oversight, but was able to convince the government at the last minute that they could handle the oversight themselves internally (thanks to the wonderful process of lobbying of course)
The above comment means to nationalize the industry I think. That's what it sounds like to me, and I agree it'd be a good step. In addition to safety, it'd stop them from their bullshit price gouging.
Why promote flying? Why not invest heavily in really fast ground transportation? Let's build a bullet train between major hubs so people have a choice. If there's a serious competitor to flying, Boeing will have to improve or they'll lose a ton of business.
If the government takes over airlines or airplane manufacturing, we'll just end up with lots of cronyism.
I say start with LA to SF and LA to LV. The current infra there sucks, and there's a lot of worthwhile stops along the way. Then perhaps upgrade NYC to DC and related lines. It'll be incredibly expensive to roll out, but should be very cheap to run and maintain.
Yeah, here we go. Trains are so much more pleasant. If they weren't 10 times as slow I would never fly.
If they weren’t 10 times as slow I would never fly.
We have the tech for high speed rail, we just refused to build it because of lobbying (bribery), regulatory capture, and forced dependence on cars and planes.
To me at least the speed isn’t a problem. I’d much rather take a 2 day Amtrak (in sleeper) than an 8 hour plane.
The problem is the pricing, and also how much it fluctuates due to the extremely low capacity (one train a day…)
You gonna build a bullet train across the ocean?
No, planes are good for that. But there's a ton of domestic travel that could easily be replaced with a decent rail network.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes, it's always going to be unfeasible to cross the Atlantic or Pacific by train.
But the vast, vast majority of air journeys taken every day aren't trans-oceanic ones. Most journeys are between destinations within the Americas or within Eurasia and Africa. There are an awful lot of journeys by plane that could be moved to trains if the infrastructure was right.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's not about trust in flying it's about trust in Boeing. Slight difference.
so, it's about trust in half of flying
Boeing was being brash until they got caught with their pants down.
You know for sure that shit happens at other manufacturers but they kept it low, and they probably are tightening their QA to not fall to scrutiny.
I hope that this will trigger heavy scrutiny from the different bodies across the world to make sure that this shit doesn't happen anymore, but that hope is naive.
That seems to be a rather unfair assertion to make. Boeing seems to be unique amongst the big airlines in having these problems; and they're relatively new problems for them too, in the grand scheme of things.
I've never once heard of systemic issues of this sort at Airbus, and it seems lazy to do a "they're all the same!" when this really does seem to be a Boeing problem first and foremost.
This happens every time a company focus shifts from building a good product to appeasing the shareholder gods. Capitalism kills.
Boeing isn't an airline...
The government already heavily subsidizes the "struggling" industry (that somehow still makes outrageous profits). The government really should exercise more control over the industry, given that they (we) pay a very high annual price for it to exist.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Come on, it only effects like 1/4 of the economy.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"If it's Boing, I'm not going"
Boing
When the plugdoor hinge consultant is asked how to spell Boeing
Took the "open-door policy" too literally.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm just waiting for the warcries of WWIII so I can buy Boeing stock as it bottoms out before daddy Warbucks saves them, and hopefully me! 🤞
I'm watching it since the door fell off, but it's barely moving. It's still in the price range it was in the last 4 years 🤷
What is a buy price for you?
"just a bit lower than right now"
Ah so that’s means if the current share price is at 169, then if we use binary to get some bits, we have 10101001.
If we take away one bit to be a bit lower it gives us 10101000 which is 168. So nearly there.
Hey they didn't specify which bit, we can aim much lower
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Boeing's hitman:
I've had a lot of trouble searching for a concrete answer to this, but does anyone know what percentage of commercial jets in the US are made by Boeing? I know it's a duopoly between them and Airbus, but to what extent is Boeing's domination?
Unsubstantiated guess, but based on a cursory search for flights on Delta, it seems like 90% are Boeing.
2 years old, but should be somewhat indicative. A lot of em seem to be 50/50 Airbus/Boeing (except Southwest, yikes), but anecdotally I’ve flown 4 times and it’s always been a Boeing.
edit: hey don’t downvote the guy I’m replying to. if you follow the steps he did you’ll come to the same conclusion. despite the makeup of their fleet, the majority of flights being offered (at least within the US) are on boeings.
It makes the most sense for a company to spread their risk amongst as many suppliers as possible if their entire business relies on the performance of those suppliers.
Thinking about it, IT hardware and networking doesn't ever seem to do this. Maybe that's because it's lots of items working together to create a system instead of multiple discrete systems.
It also makes sense for a company to reduce the number of different makes and models of aircraft so that a pilot can move from one to another without too much retraining, so they can reduce the size of spare parts inventories, service more aircraft at fewer locations, stuff like that.
And using different vendors is absolutely a thing in IT systems: https://www.telcion.com/blog/security-vendors-is-it-better-to-have-one-or-multiple
load more comments
(2 replies)
We've got a turd in the punch bowl
view more: next ›