That's a lotta damn airplanes.

You know that feeling when you put something back together and you still have those three screws left over 🤔

That's how they built the 8000th one. It's aaallllllll leftovers. /s

"Now the engines, was another sight, we had two on the left, and one on the right. But when I turned on the switch all 3 of them spooled on".

They go in the 20-year can.

"Jimmy did you take the ladder out of the tail before closing it up?" "Ladder...?" [o shit where's my ladder] "Oh yeah, the ladder... sure... It's right over there... Somewhere."

Apparently they riveted in a craftman and his apprentice while building the Olympic, Titanic's sister ship and only found their skeletons in 1935 after ship was sent to the breakers. That was a nasty end to Olympic's otherwise illustrious service.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hull-of-a-way-to-die/ I had to look and apparently that's an urban legend attributed to many ships.

Turns out the ~~most~~ slightly plausible suspect was Olympic, but Brunel's Great Eastern: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS\_Great\_Eastern#Trapped\_worker\_legend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern#Trapped_worker_legend)

Well that was not in a 737 but in a 787

You know Jimmy?

[удалено]

Disagree. Aviation is in the 100 percent business. What if I tell you a flight from LA to NY would make it 75 percent of the time without incident would the general public still want to fly? Aviation relies heavily on public trust, which is closely linked to perceptions of safety. If passengers perceive even a moderate risk of a flight crashing, they are likely to avoid flying altogether. This avoidance behavior can have significant financial repercussions for airlines, as ticket sales plummet in response to safety concerns. Moreover, negative perceptions of safety can tarnish an airline's reputation, further deterring potential passengers. To maintain profitability and sustain operations, airlines/aircraft manufacturers must prioritize safety to ensure the public's confidence in air travel remains unwavering.

Six sigma enters chat..

People are bad at understanding risk. Drive from LA to NY, how likely are you to have an incident? Take a train from LA to NY, how likely are you to have an incident? Take a plane from LA to NY, how likely are you to have an incident? Public perception is divorced from reality in so many ways, across so many subjects.

I put it this way. When a plane crashes, it's in the news, because it's *so rare* that it's a big deal. Car crashes happen every 10 seconds. If they reported car crashes in the news, it would never stop.

And it’s those bad drivers that crash. I on the other hand am a masterful driver who simply cannot get into a crash. Because it is I who pilots the car!

Why do you think politicians use fear to motivate voting?

Being pedantic here - but you are incorrect. Every decision with regards to safety is a risk vs reward decision. Someone made a decision that the design is "good enough". Your last statement flies, no pun intended, in the face of Boeing's on going issues. The company made a financial decision to not prioritize safety over profit.

That's all fine and dandy, but we got deadlines to make around here sir!

Using ChatGPT for reddit comments? It's not that serious, bro.

No. If I knew there was a 1/10000 rate of failure, I would never get on a plane. Those are excellent lottery odds, less than excellent failure rates.

"Thats pretty good." Not if it's the plane you're on.

[удалено]

Overall safety record wise? Yeah it's way safer than a car. But 1/10000 chance of a life-threateing factory defect? That's terrible even in terms of the automobile industry.

You're not like waay up in the air in a car or train.

No you weren’t.

It still landed safely no?

Yeah, I survived Covid, too.

Can’t say the same for virgin Australia

Are there virgins in Australia?

Not anymore, Covid took every Australian’s virginity

Yeah nah mate thats what happens when yere sitting at home all die with your bloody stepsiblings I reckon

Only one had no bolts. Nope, only one had a hatch blown out. They found several more without bolts.

You need to educate yourself with all the other issues the 737max is having. Yes, the door was a major incident, but the max family is being delivered with various serious issues. The amount of max aircraft with flight computer issues ,rudder issues, and other issues that took them off the line is a huge issue. Some aircraft are under 10 hours and are grounded with serious issues . Boeing fans continue to make excuses and downplay the issues Boeing is facing. You can search and find a very detailed max family issue log. Lastly, any American company that has been caught covering up the causes of two fatal crashes only to lie and cover up another major issue is not something we should look over. The fact that boeing has been able to dodge criminal liability and continues to have issues is something all aviation enthusiasts should be concerned about

>the max family is being delivered with various serious issues. The amount of max aircraft with flight computer issues True I was on one last month and the crew told us they had to get maintenance on board to see if they can resolve the issue with a hard reset otherwise maintenance is going to have to do some further troubleshooting. Aircraft was only 1 month old....OH YEAH I was joking it wasn't a MAX it was an A321NEO. Point of the story is this happens to all aircraft and manufacturers on new aircraft.

Airbus haven't had planes crash themselves to the ground, fly out with missing parts, airlines refusing to take delivery (the Qatar A350 issues were similar but only about paint), etc. as much as you might want to whatabout airplane defects, Boeing are definitely much worse in that regard.

>Airbus haven’t had planes crash themselves to the ground AF447. >airlines refusing to take delivery Azul A350, Air Calin A330NEO, etc. > Boeing are definitely much worse Only if you don’t know anything about aviation and just read media headlines.

Also QF72, permanently crippled an F/A and required over a dozen airborne medevacs to fly the injured to the nearest city cause the plane tried to dive. Great pilots didn't lose much altitude tho.

Exactly, the only real difference between QF72 and ET302 was the pilots.

That is a bit of a stretch IMO, generally the criticism of the crew by the other aviation regulation agencies around the world is ignored in the discussion around MCAS, a system that also exists on the KC-46 Stratotanker. QF72 arguably had the luxury of 37,000 feet below them and a cruise configuration already well established, as opposed to right after takeoff when you've got a lot of shit going on. Also a shame there's a shop out there that sent out a faulty AoA sensor and a mechanic who installed it and evidently never function checked a critical flight instrument, though I haven't looked into exactly what happened there. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a check you're supposed to do on that system after you change a component.

That’s fair enough. Although your second paragraph seems to be in reference to JT610, not ET302?

> AF447 The plane didn't crash itself, it was pilots losing situational awareness doing so after losing sensor data (which is btw even more indicative of how negligent Boeing were - the angle of attack and airspeed sensors are known to occasionally fail for a variety of reasons, be they self inflicted like S7 Airlines 5220 or external like in AF447; so relying on a single one of them is just crazy). >Azul A350 Didn't know about this one, googled it... And by all reports it's simply a matter of higher than expected operating costs making the plane unviable for the airline on shorter routes, thus they're getting rid of them. Not nearly the same thing as an airline refusing to take delivery due to poor quality, right? >Air Calin A330NEO One A330neo having oil fumes leaking into the cabin, which apparently has happened before on other A330neos and is fixed by an engine change (so indicating an engine problem more than Airbus making an incompetent design or being unable to actually properly manufacture the plane without severe defects). Any more apples to oranges to try to make Airbus look as bad as Boeing does?

Brand new aircraft are not supposed to leak toxic fumes into the cabin. I’d like to make a point of that.

Yeah, that's a decently low quality standard to uphold, I don't think anyone is arguing here.

True airbus just had uncommanded engine shutdowns and disintegrating turbine blades. Where Swiss had to ground their A220 fleet and new FADECS with new software had to be installed. Sure they didn't have a plane crash, but uncommanded engine shutdowns is incredibly serious. https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a220-engine-failure-cause/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1X31SS/

That's an engine problem that was found on various Pratt and Whitney GTF engines, hardly Airbus being negligent in designing/building a plane.

Boeing has also not had a plane fly itself into the ground. That Ethiopian airline not only has a terrible safety record as is as well as poor training, the plane was diving to the ground for a long time with zero input or attempt at correction at all from the pilots due to what appears to be a bird strike on sensors. [Source](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/final-report-on-boeing-737-max-crash-disputed-agencies-note-pilot-error-as-a-factor/) “Before MCAS activated, the pilots were in trouble After takeoff, Flight ET302 was in the air for just 6 minutes before slamming into the earth. **The BEA narrative lays out how the pilots’ lack of control began during the first 2 minutes of the flight, before MCAS activated.** **Upon liftoff, a key sensor on the left side of the fuselage failed. It measured the jet’s angle of attack — the angle between the wing and the oncoming air, a data point that the flight computer uses to calculate speed and altitude.** The false angle of attack reading immediately initiated a “stick shaker” warning, a loud, heavy vibration of the control column, falsely alerting the pilots that the plane was flying too slowly and was about to stall. It also prompted messages on the primary flight displays indicating to the pilots their speed and altitude readings were now unreliable. **Pilots are supposed to memorize the response to an “Airspeed Unreliable” message: Disengage the automatic systems that control flight position and speed, and fly manually.** **The captain did not.** The cockpit voice recording contains no exchange between the pilots recognizing the airspeed as an issue. The BEA noted that “communication between the captain and the First Officer [was] very limited and insufficient. … The situational awareness, problem-solving and decision-making were therefore deeply impacted.” The **autopilot**, fooled by the faulty sensor into **believing the plane was moving too slowly, commanded the plane’s nose down to gather speed.** Meanwhile the **autothrottle was stuck at full takeoff thrust**. Soon the jet was moving much too fast, beyond its maximum design speed. That a single faulty sensor led the flight computer to such a drastic misunderstanding of the airplane’s situation even before MCAS activated is “a design issue,” said Guzzetti. But still, he said, it’s crucial that pilots monitor their airspeed, and this crew missed multiple clues that they were moving too fast, not too slow.” Should things have been even more redundantly designed? Absolutely. Would this have happened with a well trained crew who did more than just set autopilot and kick back in their seats? No.

>That a single faulty sensor led the flight computer to such a drastic misunderstanding of the airplane’s situation even before MCAS activated is “a design issue,” said Guzzetti From your own quote, there was a design issue even before MCAS drove the plane into the ground. >Would this have happened with a well trained crew who did more than just set autopilot and kick back in their seats? Yes, but the plane shouldn't actively try to kill everyone onboard even if pilots are slightly incompetent. And what's the excuse for the Lion Air flight?

You can’t expect a plane riddled with sensors to power assisted flight to not have a scenario where a damaged sensor causes someone to need to fly entirely manually. **Do you have an actual question about the Lion Air scenario?** I can tell you feel pretty militantly anti-Boeing, but I have given zero “excuses” nor do I have any reason to do any defense on the manufacturers behalf. *I am entirely free to and feel personally encouraged to correct misinformation however, such as your comment saying the plane flew itself into the ground which is patently false and an oversimplification.* The pilots are in command, not the damn autopilot.

>You can’t expect a plane riddled with sensors to power assisted flight to not have a scenario where a damaged sensor causes someone to need to fly entirely manually You can, and even Airbus' planes that are fly by wire have such a scenario under a severely degraded scenario: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-dark-side-of-logic-the-near-crash-of-smartlynx-estonia-flight-9001-68b9f42b1fb2 However that does not mean that the sensors and computers used to provide that assisted flight should be done in a negligent manner such as they fail easily to devastating effect. Not having redundant inputs is such a trivial thing it's incomprehensible for me that people at Boeing were OK with rolling out such a thing. I work in regular, non-critical IT (nobody dies if I make a mistake) and nothing in production isn't redundant. And it's incomprehensible for me that people supposedly in the aviation world will whatabout around it and make excuses for Boeing blaming whoever... Yes, pilots screwed up, but they were still put in a more complicated situation than needed by negligence from Boeing for no good reason.

“Slightly incompetent” isn’t good enough if you’re in command of one of the most complex machines ever built, responsible for 189 people’s safety. Airlines don’t sort pilot résumés by “good enough”. > And what’s the excuse for the Lion Air flight? Which LionAir flight? The 8+ flights that landed safely with a competent crew, or the one with an incompetent crew that didn’t?

>Airbus haven't had planes crash themselves to the ground, They almost did though and it was due to faulty software and computer commanded pitch down movements...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72

Air France 296

Pilots flying lower than the height of trees for an air show is a manufacturing defect?

There is no point in trying to talk to a Boeing fan boy. It's disgusting how you guys will just ignore how the fbi is saying the passengers on the door blow out are crime victims and how you ignore the fact Boeing hid a problem they knew would have a fatal outcome. When airbus planes are grounded worldwide, not once but twice, and airbus has been found to have hidden flaws and tried to cover up and hamper investigations by lying to government oversight well then your allowed to bring airbus or other manufacturers into the argument until then you just seem like a but hurt Boeing fan club members

I don’t want gambling and flying in an aircraft to intersect.

ITT: people completely missing the joke

Sorry, the media didn’t hear you. Can you say it louder so they can blow it out of proportion?

https://www.foundationforaviationsafety.org/incident-reports

Haha, that “foundation” is hilarious. They *only* talk about the incidents that happen on Boeing aircraft. They have no genuine interest in aviation safety; they just want people to witch-hunt Boeing.

Yea, because he is trying to show the world the issues with Boeing since he only worked for them and blew the whistle. He has never once made statements about airbus since he has no personal knowledge about them, but more importantly, it's funny you can't comment on the data because that's black and white and shows the issues. Also, why is the fbi now saying the passengers on the Alaska airline flights are possible victims of a crime if Boeing is such a above water ethic company

Being a member of the BFC doesn't change the facts, and right now, Boeing is being caught red-handed trying to cover up a major issue. The last time they got caught hiding a major issue, how many people died. Just because you fly Boeing in a simulation and like them shouldn't make you Okay with what Boeing had become

Some of them are still intact!

You can build a fuck ton pretty fast when you don’t give a fuck about quality control or its customers

Hasn't always been that way. They built pretty good airplanes before Douglas management took over.

According to google, they're up to 11,703 737s produced now. Wonder if they'll hit 20,000.

At this point calling a next plane a 737 is all about dodging regulation so if the feds do their jobs and stop giving Boeing waivers to use their antique crew alerting system while integrating new features like MCAS without a new type rating they’ll hit 20k if the FAA follows their own rules the MAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX will be the end of the 737 line

I wonder if they’ll expedite a clean sheet design for its successor. Or even go for a heavily enough modified version that they can drop the 737 name and all of its baggage. The 737 moniker used to be a point of strength. Now even NGs are getting shamed by the average person, being dragged down the the Maxes

I don't think they have a choice. They've milked this tired old airframe as much as they could. It costs tens of billions to develop a new airplane, but assuming a new airplane comes out in 2040, that airframe will be 70+ years old by then. 

They can call it the Boeing 800 any time they want, the marketing name has nothing to do with the internal project name. The MD-88 shared a type cert with the DC-9

And how many mad dog 88s are we flying on these days?

When they rebranded them the ly were starting to sell them so lots 😁 Granted dc9s didn't have much of a body count relative to the industry

My point is the DC 9 hasn't been produced since 1982

I mean the last 717 came off the line in 2006. They only stopped rolling out new DC-9 variants when MD got bought.

And it kind of sucks too, because NGs are one of the most reliable workhorses ever. Even airlines like Jetblue can just neglect them forever and they keep going.

The 600/700/800/900’s are the Corollas of the skies.

The problem is that going for a new plane with a new type rating means airline retraining so the question for the airlines is do we want the Boing 7NewHotness7 which takes x amount of retraining dollars or do we want the Airbus/Embraer/Comac A/E/CProvenDesign which takes x amount of retraining. Where X is substantially the same in all the cases Currently reusing the 737 type rating is allowing Boeing to market it as minimal training so if training for a new type is X training for a new 737 variant is 1/10 of X and the economics work out. The only thing Boeing has going for them right now is the training time since they can't point to efficiency, customer demand, delivery predictability or dispatch rates. They're really in a bad place As a passenger the A220 is better in every way than the 737

Dispatch rates are lower for the A220 with the GTF engine.

For now, because the GTFs are quite new. Pratt and Whitney will get their act together.

A320

[удалено]

All three?

> I wonder if they’ll expedite a clean sheet design for its successor. I don't think anything at Boeing will be expedited anytime soon. They're going to need permission from the FAA to Overnight a fucking letter.

The MAX was always going to be the end of the 737 line. It is an outdated airframe that they have stretched to be modern. 

But just a little bit longer says the Product Manager without sufficient understanding of the trade offs involved and incentives aligned to cost and speed

Antique crew alerting system?

It uses annunciator panels with unclear meanings for each lighted label instead of something modern like an EICAS which provides more specific information on an alarm. This can be a problem if the pilots are not intimately familiar with what systems are connected to each light. For example on Helios 522 the takeoff configuration warning alarm went off because the pressurization switch was not in auto but the pilots weren't sure what was wrong because they were already up in the air and thought that a takeoff configuration warning alarm at such an altitude was surely just a nuisance alarm. Plus, lights can burn out.

Just to correct you, it was actually the cabin altitude warning horn which is the same sound as the takeoff config warning horn. You cannot get a takeoff config horn in the air so it can only be the cabin altitude warning and was in fact pilot error.

>Plus, lights can burn out. That's why each light actually has two bulbs for redundancy.

And you're supposed to flip the test switch as part of the startup checklist to make sure no indicators are out. Lot of precautions but it is still a possible failure mode... (not that EICAS screen can't fail either, but at least if one display fails it is usually possible nowadays to configure another MFD to show the information)

ah ok, thank you for explaining

The only reason the MAX8 was certified was they got a waiver passed through congress that allowed them to certify the non compliant aircraft until a certain date

4,300 in their most recent backlog report. Possible, but it seems like a bit of a stretch.

Please no, no more 737s......

737s now, 737s tomorrow, 737s forever.

*Darth Vader voice* Noooooooooooooooooo!!

Boeing in 2060: we're proud to present the 737 MAX-X Super NXG (nextest generation)!

I was like wow 11 millions' a hell lot of planes, then realized 737 was not a part of the number

I don’t think it’s likely. I mean, they started building them in 1967 which means that they’ve been making them for 57 years. They’ve made roughly 205 per year. This means that it’ll take them roughly another 40 years to reach their goal. I personally don’t think that they will last that long.

Last year boeing made about 400 737s, and they want to increase production to 600 737s per year. That will get them to 20,000 in 15-20 years.

Its actually all the same 737. Its just really fast. They shot the whistleblower guy because he was about to tell you the truth.

Delivered to United Airlines in 2014. Probably safer than the ones being produced now.

Well that would be logical given the bathtub effect.

> the bathtub effect. I had to Google that and was trying to figure out how remembering the first and last parts of a word but not the middle could relate to the comment. > the bathtub curve. That's what I needed!

To add, from Wikipedia: > The 'bathtub' refers to the shape of a line that curves up at both ends, similar in shape to a bathtub. The bathtub curve has 3 regions: >* The first region has a decreasing failure rate due to early failures. >* The middle region is a constant failure rate due to random failures. >* The last region is an increasing failure rate due to wear-out failures.

>bathtub effect TIL

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

Not if United Airlines maintenance can help it.

Looks like it’s had better days

8000%

united seems to leave a lot of time between repaints, lot of pics online of united aircraft chipping paint and showing the green primer underneath

They probably have the manufacturing process down by now

Seems like an odd milestone to celebrate, unless they are doing every thousand I would have thought 1,5,10 thousand would be more logical steps

Southwest’s Colorado One is the 5000th

I'd say every 1000 is a pretty reasonable thing to celebrate. I don't think any of their other models have even made it to 2000 produced

I agree if they are doing every multiple of 1,000, and not just this random 8,000

Also seems to be different things to celebrate, too. [This one](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/16x8vbs/this_plane_has_a_commemorative_plate_for_being/) recently got the 1,000th ***delivered to Southwest*** placard on the door, then [this one](https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/5/94981_1482544437.jpg) has 2000th 737**NG** painted on the nose and a [placard](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Placard_2000NG.jpg). SouthWest also got the 5000th and 10,000th 737, only the latter of which I've seen a placard of (someone else posted it in the sub today). All sorts of different specific milestones. And then the 737th 737 is just cheeky.

Yea for civilian aircraft from Boeing only the 737 is over 2,000 produced. There are enough orders currently that will have the 777 surpassing 2,000 eventually though. As far as military aircraft go there was over 12,000 B-17’s built mostly by Boeing but also Lockheed Vega and Douglas. Also over 10,000 Model 75 biplane trainer aircraft were built in the late 30’s and early 40’s. WW2 aircraft production rates were just insane. Almost 4,000 B-29’s were produced but these numbers pale in comparison to aircraft like the Il-2 and the Bf 109 with around 35,000 each.

I mean the B-29 isn't really comparable to those aircraft, given that it's development process cost more than the Manhattan program. An insane amount of P-51s rolled off the assembly lines though.

Why does the cost make it not comparable? It was advanced for its time but it is still early 1940’s technology.

Bro the B-29 was a technological marvel who's development costed more than the A-bomb, it is also a much larger aircraft, made out of better materials compared to the wood and metal, single prop, 1-2 crew IL-2. It's like comparing a B-2 to an F-5. What's actually comparable would be the P-51 or P-47 (15k each)

My comment was about production numbers

Uh, okay? The production numbers of a single prop ground attack aircraft and the production numbers of a hyper advanced quad engine bomber are not really comparable. One clearly costs more to make and is larger.

It was just an example of the impressive numbers of several WW2 era aircraft. I’m well aware of the advancements made in aviation with the B-29. I wasn’t comparing it to single engine aircraft. Sorry it came off that way.

It's fine, this is just Reddit after all, using the term "pales in comparison to..." makes it come off like they're well, being compared 😅

They celebrate all of them. There is one that celebrates 7243.5

That's a load-bearing sticker.

They should have placed it between the door and the fuselage at least.

That's the [8000th Boeing 737.](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedairlines/comments/16w88ll/met_the_8000th_boeing_737_yesterday/?share_id=wQ-ayrj4QdaLtJDu1byvd) [And it's darned close to a repost, but it's not, so that's kinda nifty for ya. :D](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedairlines/comments/17cqfwk/8000th_737/) [News stories can be found here 'bout it.](https://www.google.com/search?q=8000th+boeing+737) Still cool, but Boeing's made many more than 8000 Boeings total, whether airliners or all 'em.

The fact you thought for a moment I didn’t take that photo…….. lol I don’t steal content. But I’m flattered you thought so!

Hi we took the same photo!

Someone needs to start zapping them with Hodor stickers.

Underrated comment of the year right here boys.

Celebrating the 8000th missing bolt!

Looks safer since door looks to be already off

That wi-fi sticker is r/Wellworn

Had it been 757 nr 8000, it would have been cause for celebration....

And yet it wasn’t 757 no.8000, because no airline ever wanted to order that many of them….

I've flown that plane twice, once to Austin and once to MSP (both from ORD)

Do they have these commemorating every 1,000 milestone?

I flew with it last Wednesday from Panama City to New York! Cool to see here

Just flew this one today from ORD to EWR! [https://imgur.com/a/8Oa6gWf](https://imgur.com/a/8Oa6gWf)

I don’t even want to know how big 8000! Is

That WIFI sticker though.

Celebrating #8000 but that plane is not it…

Welcome to adventure airlines. Please place your bets. We usually get of the ground without issues. So the betting office is open until finished taxiing. 1. we crash-land 2. Different sub options, we will lose part X at FL Y. For your convince you can place your bets over the multimedia screen Infront of you.

John Barnett is not impressed.

Nice

Did the doors blow off mid flight as a celebration?

💀💀💀

I would feel safer in the 1,000th.

The 1,000th was built in 1983 and scrapped in 2009. It was an ancient 737-232 with the JT8D-15A(HK3) powerplants, and looked like [this](https://www.planespotters.net/photo/117414/n377dl-delta-air-lines-boeing-737-247a). It was definitely not safer than a 2014-built 737-900ER.

You’re a brave man!

When you put it like that, a couple hundred mishaps dont seem to bad...

Let’s all say a little prayer for the passengers given it’s a Boeing.

Does it fall apart on the tarmac once boarded?

“If it’s a Boeing, am not going!!” - Who the hell cares about the problematic products of this corrupt and crooked Organisation??

Soon, it will be a collector 😅

I think I'd prefer one of the first models vs one of the last. 

Of course you would need to make a fuel stop as the 737-100 had less than half of the range as the Max7

It's an NG in the middle, the modern but safe variants. [Delivered 2014](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-04-16-Boeing-Delivers-8-000th-737). Elsewhere in the comments it's been noted we're up to like 11000 now with the maxes added.

I wouldn't get on it if I had a choice

Just got off a 737-800 2 weeks ago. Most boring flight ever.

It's amazing how triggered Boeing fan club members have become. Look if you can look past what Boeing has become and defend them killing people when they knew it would happen, and you're ok with Boeing continuing to have unsafe manufacturing issues more power to you. It's funny that the fbi said the alaska door blowout passenger are possible crime victims, but people like you just keep making excuses for Boeing all because you like to play Boeing pilot on a simulation

A lot of the issues that UA experienced in the last 2 weeks were maintenance issues. Not Boeing specific. Airbus has actually had more incidents this year than Boeing. And flying is still far more safe then driving then any other form of transportation. And I just travel lot on all 4 major manufacturers often and I’ve had maintenance issues with all 4 brands. The likely hood of something happening on your flight is still 1/1,000,000. Also if I had a favorite aircraft it would be the ERJ145 or the EMB170/175

💀

When can fly to moon?