[bequanna]

Here comes the confirmation bias.

Now, every issue with a Boeing plane will be noticed, reported on and magnified. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad as there actually do seem to be some significant issues at Boeing. Hopefully, the result is an intense shakeup resulting in increased focus on quality.

[margalabargala]

Unless the plane was brand new from Boeing, it's difficult to see how this is a Boeing failure rather than a Delta maintenance failure.

[mvdtnz]

I guess that's a consequence of directly causing the deaths of 346 people. We are right to scrutinise them harshly.

[glitchc]

Here is a list of the top ten causes of death in the US [1]. You will have a much better chance of reducing your risk of dying by giving up drinking and eating fatty foods than by giving up flying on a Boeing aircraft.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

[chx]

1. This is misleading because the number of people flying on airplane is significantly lower than those who have a chance for heart disease because they have a heartbeat.

2. Not flying on Boeing aircraft is much, much easier to do than avoiding heart disease.

[mvdtnz]

This is a really weird response, man.

[kingwill101]

And how does that negate Boeing's maintenance woes?

[colpabar]

What is your point?

[akira2501]

> Now, every issue with a Boeing plane will be noticed, reported on and magnified.

It is a safety critical industry. Did you expect something different? Would we be "better served" by acting differently?

The goal of someone flying is to get there alive, not win the war against bias.

[filleduchaos]

> Would we be "better served" by acting differently?

We would be "better served" by actually scrutinizing [all] the parties that need scrutinizing, not latching on to one scapegoat out of fear and sensationalism as opposed to actual safety consciousness.

Pearl-clutching at Boeing about an aircraft the company delivered in the _1990s_ does absolutely nothing to "get [someone] there alive". Where is your outrage at e.g. Delta for flying a 30+ year old plane that has clearly been poorly inspected/maintained?

[bequanna]

The tone of your comment confuses me. I didn’t say it was a bad thing at all.

[akira2501]

I was reacting to the suggestion that people will only react to this out of misplaced "confirmation bias." Your statement was qualified as "it's not _necessarily_ bad."

The suggestion is that a negative or useless human emotion may, in this case, be incidentally useful.

My suggestion is that it is not at all useless or negative, and due to the safety factors involved, this is more due to survival bias than confirmation bias.

I sort of felt you were punching down into the public crowd gathered around this issue, and I took some umbrage with that.

[sramsay]

LOL. Requesting permission to use the phrase "the goal is not to win the war against bias" in future, highly relevant situations. ;)

[glitchc]

I think this has been happening since the Ethiopian Airlines incident. Individuals should be extremely careful about using the news as a reliable way of measuring personal risk.

[AlexandrB]

There were plenty of rumblings about Boeing's poor quality control after the MCAS issues. Didn't seem to change much. But then again, maybe this is the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of PR.

[sokoloff]

The last 757 flew away from Boeing in 2004. It's surely the case that the landing gear issue that happened today has little or nothing to do with Boeing's quality control and everything to do with airline maintenance actions/responsibility.

[gregoriol]

Maybe different problem here: while MCAS was an engineering problem, door was an assembly problem, here it would more likely be a maintenance problem (757s have been built years ago), which is on the airline or not directly Boeing?

[Jtsummers]

Yes. The youngest 757 is 20 years old, oldest is 40. This would be a maintenance issue of some sort.