Boeing 787 (and Boeing in general) - how can I evaluate the risk?
April 23, 2024 11:28 AM Subscribe
I want to visit family in the US, but the most reasonable way to get there in terms of time and money is flying across the Atlantic in a Boeing 787. How do I evaluate the risk?
To complicate matters, there's no Boeing-free way to reach my destination - all airlines seem to have at least one leg on a Boeing (I saw a 737, 767, and possibly 717?) How should I think about whether the risk of avoiding the Boeing 787 is worth the extra time and money? Is there any safety benefit to choosing a flight itinerary with an Airbus for the trans-Atlantic leg and Boeing planes only for the brief over-land legs within the US?
To complicate matters, there's no Boeing-free way to reach my destination - all airlines seem to have at least one leg on a Boeing (I saw a 737, 767, and possibly 717?) How should I think about whether the risk of avoiding the Boeing 787 is worth the extra time and money? Is there any safety benefit to choosing a flight itinerary with an Airbus for the trans-Atlantic leg and Boeing planes only for the brief over-land legs within the US?
A friend of mine who is a pilot opines that Boeing planes other than the 737 are safe as can be. He didn't comment about the 737 but that's where all the problems have been iirc.
posted by leslies at 11:37 AM on April 23 [2 favorites]
posted by leslies at 11:37 AM on April 23 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Not to babysit the thread, but what's got me spooked are the recent whistleblower reports (and to some extent, the controversy surrounding the first whistleblower's death).
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 11:42 AM on April 23 [1 favorite]
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 11:42 AM on April 23 [1 favorite]
Basically, it's the 737's, yeah. There was an incident where a 787-800 lost altitude suddenly, though.
Which airline is operating the 787, and would you be flying West to the US over the Atlantic or East from the US over the Atlantic?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:44 AM on April 23 [1 favorite]
Which airline is operating the 787, and would you be flying West to the US over the Atlantic or East from the US over the Atlantic?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:44 AM on April 23 [1 favorite]
How do I evaluate the risk?
In 2023 there wasn't a single fatal accident, anywhere in the world, involving any make or model of jet aircraft.
A rational process of risk management should focus on (a) the car ride to and from the airport, and (b) any roads you have to cross on foot.
posted by Klipspringer at 11:49 AM on April 23 [43 favorites]
In 2023 there wasn't a single fatal accident, anywhere in the world, involving any make or model of jet aircraft.
A rational process of risk management should focus on (a) the car ride to and from the airport, and (b) any roads you have to cross on foot.
posted by Klipspringer at 11:49 AM on April 23 [43 favorites]
Flying is safer than driving.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:52 AM on April 23 [5 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 11:52 AM on April 23 [5 favorites]
Agency though...
I haven't flown in over a decade due to DVT reasons, and my fear of that. If I am driving, I might have a chance to avoid bad events. Flying, not much I can do.
But as terrible as Boeing has been of late, I wouldn't be concerned. If I have to go across an ocean, I would fly. Other than that, won't.
posted by Windopaene at 12:01 PM on April 23
I haven't flown in over a decade due to DVT reasons, and my fear of that. If I am driving, I might have a chance to avoid bad events. Flying, not much I can do.
But as terrible as Boeing has been of late, I wouldn't be concerned. If I have to go across an ocean, I would fly. Other than that, won't.
posted by Windopaene at 12:01 PM on April 23
Fear of flying is basically "fear of being trapped in a airborne tin can for multiple minutes knowing you are about to die and being unable to do anything about it." Fortunately, as has been mentioned, zero people have died in airborne tin cans in the last year. So perhaps approach your fear as an unnecessary phobia rather than any kind of fact-based apprehension about the safety of air travel.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:03 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:03 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
The answer before, like, a few months ago was always a breezy "It's safer to drive than fly" etc etc. But people are spooked by the recent Boeing scandals, and rightly so. As NPR puts it, "Though commercial air travel is still very safe overall, Boeing now faces renewed questions over its ability to meet quality and safety standards." Why shouldn't customers be worried that Boeing has been flaking on its safety standards? It's all over the news because it really is not a normal standard. It does seem like if they don't get their act together there is a fatal accident waiting to happen. No one wants to be on that plane when it does.
So ... there really is NOT a way to assess the risk, is there? But here is how I'm thinking about it. Even though Boeing isn't doing its job, air travel is still safer than most things. While the "safer to drive than fly" truism doesn't take away the recent anxiety, all we can do is use these kinds of analogies. So in that vein: Automakers also have countless recalls and scandals, often callous calculations over cost of recall vs cost of lawsuits. It's not as newsworthy when a bunch of transmissions fail on the highway as when one airplane door blows out midflight but it does cause more death.So I have decided to keep flying and just try not to worry about it. Too much.
posted by rainy day girl at 12:21 PM on April 23 [5 favorites]
So ... there really is NOT a way to assess the risk, is there? But here is how I'm thinking about it. Even though Boeing isn't doing its job, air travel is still safer than most things. While the "safer to drive than fly" truism doesn't take away the recent anxiety, all we can do is use these kinds of analogies. So in that vein: Automakers also have countless recalls and scandals, often callous calculations over cost of recall vs cost of lawsuits. It's not as newsworthy when a bunch of transmissions fail on the highway as when one airplane door blows out midflight but it does cause more death.So I have decided to keep flying and just try not to worry about it. Too much.
posted by rainy day girl at 12:21 PM on April 23 [5 favorites]
The blunt answer is - you don't, you trust the FAA. There is no way for an individual with no aerospace background, mechanical background, or manufacturing background to meaningfully evaluate the safety of modern flight systems. That's not a bad thing. There's also no way for you to reasonably evaluate the safety of your car (the NHTSA does that), your consumer electronics (the CPSC does that), or what you do at your job (OSHA does that).
What you read in the newspaper is fully known to the FAA - and almost definitely the FAA knows significantly more that's not publicized. The FAA is highly incentivized to continue its safety record. That safety record is currently that exactly zero passengers have died in the USA or with USA airlines from an airplane failure or collision in regularly scheduled airline services since 2018. The amount of consideration the FAA puts into safety is so extreme that arguably a large portion of the US aerospace industry is devoted solely to FAA safety compliance.
I don't think you'd ever ask the question, "how can I evaluate the risk of an iPhone exploding". However, incidents like that with consumer devices happen almost every day. You would likely not ask the question, "how can I evaluate the risk of driving to go to the grocery store" - despite 20,000 or so people dying every year from car collisions. You don't ask these questions because you accept risk of every day activities due to the substantial oversight of government administrative bodies. That's not unreasonable, it's how we live as (relatively) uneducated people who do not have the time to research every choice they make.
You should do the same for flying.
posted by saeculorum at 12:57 PM on April 23 [4 favorites]
What you read in the newspaper is fully known to the FAA - and almost definitely the FAA knows significantly more that's not publicized. The FAA is highly incentivized to continue its safety record. That safety record is currently that exactly zero passengers have died in the USA or with USA airlines from an airplane failure or collision in regularly scheduled airline services since 2018. The amount of consideration the FAA puts into safety is so extreme that arguably a large portion of the US aerospace industry is devoted solely to FAA safety compliance.
I don't think you'd ever ask the question, "how can I evaluate the risk of an iPhone exploding". However, incidents like that with consumer devices happen almost every day. You would likely not ask the question, "how can I evaluate the risk of driving to go to the grocery store" - despite 20,000 or so people dying every year from car collisions. You don't ask these questions because you accept risk of every day activities due to the substantial oversight of government administrative bodies. That's not unreasonable, it's how we live as (relatively) uneducated people who do not have the time to research every choice they make.
You should do the same for flying.
posted by saeculorum at 12:57 PM on April 23 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: OK, last update by me, I promise...
I left the question a bit open ended, I should have been more specific that what I'm really looking for is if there is any way to 1) evaluate the risks of one possible suspect Boeing plane vs another, and 2) evaluate the risk of flying trans-Atlantic in a possibly suspect plane vs flying over land. An analogy might be trying to figure out when it's most dangerous to drive, e.g., looking up statistics to find out if it's a actually more dangerous to be on the road on New Year's Eve. I've never been afraid of flying but I'm a chronic overthinker and over-researcher. I suspect in the case of commercial air travel there's simply too little data to draw any meaningful conclusions.
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 1:27 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
I left the question a bit open ended, I should have been more specific that what I'm really looking for is if there is any way to 1) evaluate the risks of one possible suspect Boeing plane vs another, and 2) evaluate the risk of flying trans-Atlantic in a possibly suspect plane vs flying over land. An analogy might be trying to figure out when it's most dangerous to drive, e.g., looking up statistics to find out if it's a actually more dangerous to be on the road on New Year's Eve. I've never been afraid of flying but I'm a chronic overthinker and over-researcher. I suspect in the case of commercial air travel there's simply too little data to draw any meaningful conclusions.
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 1:27 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Which airline is operating the 787, and would you be flying West to the US over the Atlantic or East from the US over the Atlantic?
American Airlines, and I believe it was a 787 in both directions.
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 1:33 PM on April 23
American Airlines, and I believe it was a 787 in both directions.
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 1:33 PM on April 23
As kickingtheground pointed out, there have been literally no fatalities or hull losses on a 787, ever. The plane has been flying since 2009, almost 15 years ago. The safety record of the plane itself has been functionally perfect, as good as it gets.
While there have been issues with the (different, dissimilar) 737 MAX series of planes that might be cause for concern if flying on that specific model of plane, and there is a whistleblower who claims that there might be issues with the 787 as they age, at the end of the day, the statistics speak for themselves. There is no reason to believe there is any more risk to flying in a 787 today than in any other plane from any other manufacturer currently flying.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 1:42 PM on April 23
While there have been issues with the (different, dissimilar) 737 MAX series of planes that might be cause for concern if flying on that specific model of plane, and there is a whistleblower who claims that there might be issues with the 787 as they age, at the end of the day, the statistics speak for themselves. There is no reason to believe there is any more risk to flying in a 787 today than in any other plane from any other manufacturer currently flying.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 1:42 PM on April 23
As everyone says above, I would not worry one iota. But:
The following airlines fly Airbus transatlantic: BA, Delta (who has a MASSIVE Airbus widebody fleet), Air France, KLM, Lufthansa (almost exclusively Airbus), Iberia (100% Airbus), SAS (all Airbus across the pond), TAP (100% airbus) - I could go on. For obvious reasons, European airlines tend to be Airbus-focused. Why are you restricting yourself to American if you are worried? I can't imagine there is a European destination you cannot get to on Airbus with *at worst* a double connect.
posted by scolbath at 2:06 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
The following airlines fly Airbus transatlantic: BA, Delta (who has a MASSIVE Airbus widebody fleet), Air France, KLM, Lufthansa (almost exclusively Airbus), Iberia (100% Airbus), SAS (all Airbus across the pond), TAP (100% airbus) - I could go on. For obvious reasons, European airlines tend to be Airbus-focused. Why are you restricting yourself to American if you are worried? I can't imagine there is a European destination you cannot get to on Airbus with *at worst* a double connect.
posted by scolbath at 2:06 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
if there is any way to 1) evaluate the risks of one possible suspect Boeing plane vs another, and 2) evaluate the risk of flying trans-Atlantic in a possibly suspect plane vs flying over land
Not in any meaningful way, no (to both). As numerous others have mentioned, flying (in commercial jets) is incredibly safe by any standard. I guess, if you're flying over water, you may get a slightly softer landing if the plane falls out of the sky, but that's unlikely to have any actual impact on your chance of surviving.
I'm far more worried about driving than flying. Even more so being a cyclist. Enjoy the trip.
posted by dg at 6:00 PM on April 23
Not in any meaningful way, no (to both). As numerous others have mentioned, flying (in commercial jets) is incredibly safe by any standard. I guess, if you're flying over water, you may get a slightly softer landing if the plane falls out of the sky, but that's unlikely to have any actual impact on your chance of surviving.
I'm far more worried about driving than flying. Even more so being a cyclist. Enjoy the trip.
posted by dg at 6:00 PM on April 23
Typing your question into this website was likely more dangerous than flying on a Boeing 787, or any commercial airliner for that matter.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 7:05 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 7:05 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
what I'm really looking for is if there is any way to 1) evaluate the risks of one possible suspect Boeing plane vs another, and 2) evaluate the risk of flying trans-Atlantic in a possibly suspect plane vs flying over land.
1) No, because all Boeing planes (and Airbus planes) have had zero fatality rates due to the plane for decades.
2) No, for the same reason.
You are asking about the probability of an event that has never happened.
posted by saeculorum at 8:04 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
1) No, because all Boeing planes (and Airbus planes) have had zero fatality rates due to the plane for decades.
2) No, for the same reason.
You are asking about the probability of an event that has never happened.
posted by saeculorum at 8:04 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
Hi there, I am someone who has a fear of flying and but will still fly with certain airlines that I trust. Level of anxiety = on edge and unable to relax throughout flight. Terrified of bad turbulence.
I don't have anything to add to what other people have said, but I just flew on a 787 Dreamliner (anxiously), and couldn't believe how much I enjoyed it. It is now my favourite plane to fly on. Feels so roomy, so stable compared to all the smaller planes I usually fly on.
Anyway, just wanted to pipe up and say you may surprise yourself if you face your fear. I won't be scared of the Dreamliner in future (though still dislike flying...).
posted by thereader at 8:30 PM on April 23
I don't have anything to add to what other people have said, but I just flew on a 787 Dreamliner (anxiously), and couldn't believe how much I enjoyed it. It is now my favourite plane to fly on. Feels so roomy, so stable compared to all the smaller planes I usually fly on.
Anyway, just wanted to pipe up and say you may surprise yourself if you face your fear. I won't be scared of the Dreamliner in future (though still dislike flying...).
posted by thereader at 8:30 PM on April 23
No, because all Boeing planes (and Airbus planes) have had zero fatality rates due to the plane for decades.
Boeing's faulty flight software was the major factor in two crashes which killed 346 passengers in 2018-19. I am Team "flying is incredibly safe" but we don't need to over-egg the pudding.
posted by Klipspringer at 2:29 AM on April 24 [5 favorites]
Boeing's faulty flight software was the major factor in two crashes which killed 346 passengers in 2018-19. I am Team "flying is incredibly safe" but we don't need to over-egg the pudding.
posted by Klipspringer at 2:29 AM on April 24 [5 favorites]
ALL passengers planes are actually incredibly safe, and even the Boeing "problem childs" are limited to their latest 737 models, i.e. 737 Max family. ALL OTHER Boeing planes have GREAT safety records.
posted by kschang at 6:24 AM on April 24
posted by kschang at 6:24 AM on April 24
My understanding of the whistleblowing production line concerns focuses on metal shavings dropping into wiring looms. There is a higher chance of, eventually some day down the line, that causing an arc. But for that to happen, first the wiring insulation needs to get damaged.
The Boeing mess is all based on the managers banking on their legendary factors of safety absorbing the cost cutting.
Aviation disasters are often described as a swiss cheese model, where all the holes in the cheese slices have to line up for something to get through. The production line issues with the 787 are just pre-lining up a couple of slices, but as seen in 15 years of operation, there are still plenty of solid pieces catching the flaws.
posted by Huggiesbear at 8:02 AM on April 24 [1 favorite]
The Boeing mess is all based on the managers banking on their legendary factors of safety absorbing the cost cutting.
Aviation disasters are often described as a swiss cheese model, where all the holes in the cheese slices have to line up for something to get through. The production line issues with the 787 are just pre-lining up a couple of slices, but as seen in 15 years of operation, there are still plenty of solid pieces catching the flaws.
posted by Huggiesbear at 8:02 AM on April 24 [1 favorite]
Something that might help you consider risk is to look at the airline deaths in the '70s and '80s vs now. Here's an "Our World In Data(dot)org" graph. I too am looking at some of the recent whistleblower revelations about the 787 assembly process and raising an eyebrow, but in the wider perspective modern aviation is still a different world from what it was when I was a kid.
posted by straw at 3:55 PM on April 24 [1 favorite]
posted by straw at 3:55 PM on April 24 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: OK, based on the clear consensus I went ahead and bought tickets based on optimum convenience and price rather than aircraft model (ended up including several legs on a Boeing but not the 787 due to a change in itinerary/dates, but that was pure coincidence). Thanks everyone who replied!
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 12:24 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 12:24 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
« Older Delayed insurance settlement $, how long do they... | My mother's neighbor has stopped feeding the stray... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by kickingtheground at 11:36 AM on April 23 [15 favorites]