News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I said I would never fly again unless I absolutely have to. Now I will absolutely have to and I hope to god it's on an Airbus.
Airbus has it's own set of issues and maintenance problems. They just haven't been newsworthy. I will hand it to them, they've consistently improved the maintainability of their aircraft over time, however they have no interest in improving longevity. Boeing has an extensive aging fleet plan and support. Airbus just says "buy a new airplane".
Can you link to sources for this?
Also, it makes sense to retire a plane when it’s 20-30 years old, essentially because it becomes extremely inefficient. That said There are nearly 200 A300s flying. They were introduced in 1974.
I have a friend who is the chief engineer for a charter airline that has a 4 plane fleet, A320, First gen. From the 80s or early 90s.
Your claim doesn’t seem to hold up.
I've worked on several fleets of cargo aircraft that are mostly comprised of PAX to cargo conversions or dedicated freighters. When they exceed their airframe hours for passenger service, they go to cargo to live out the rest of their lives. I've worked on multiple fleets that were built in the 70's. B767-200's, A300's, and DC-10's. The DC(MD)-10's on my current fleet are all retired now due to economic reasons, but the airframes are still absolutely solid. The A300's are still flying but are steadily being retired due to Airbus not approving major repairs for issues related to the age of the aircraft. All of the A310's at my company have already been retired due to Airbus dropping aging fleet support. The B767-200's will keep flying for a long time because Boeing has a very extensive aging fleet program. The only limit for the B767's longevity is the owner's wallet. With that being the case, the retired A300's and MD-10's at my company are being replaced with factory-new B767-300's and B777-300's.
Also, the B757's I've worked on will last just as long as the 767's. The oldest ones I worked on had over 150,000 flight hours and were factory freighters. The company that owned them finally retired them at 200,000 flight hours. They were still airworthy, but they were becoming pretty expensive to maintain and the owner replaced them with slightly newer but less used 757-200F's and 767-300's. The 767's were freshly retired from PAX service (got the IAI P2F conversion), and the 757's were from another freighter line.
I don't have any links. I'm actively working in the industry on the maintenance side of widebody aircraft, currently for a company that owns over 400 aircraft. I've worked on several fleets and airframes beforehand for a MRO doing similar work.
What you explain sounds totally reasonable. The thing is that older Boeings And DCs and MDs have an American old school philosophy about them, think of the muscle car era, while Airbuses have been conceived different from the start. Even the 300/310 (2nd gen, with the two man cockpit) adopted a computer driven approach, while on the American ones, the computers were simply an auxiliary feature. The result is that certifying such an integral part of the system, based on computer systems is an iffy proposition. I have seen this same issue, with ATMs. While the hardware may be totally sound, getting computer spares has become extremely expensive. Replacing 286 CPUs, for example is really difficult, you can't really find new ones on the market. Solutions exist but it's really about economics. These solutions can extend A300's life, up to 60 years. That's fairly long.
DC 3's still fly, but many have been essentially rebuilt, to the last rivet. Apart from the warbirds, the commercial ones are still used because it's very hard to find modern planes that can replace the DC3's unique capabilities. Rough landing strips, robustness, easy low tech maintenance, etc. They are expected to be flying into their 100th birthdays.
You should be able to check what airplane your flight uses. The last few times I’ve flown, I’ve been able to sort by airbus. It might be site dependent though.
Good to know, thanks.
You can choose flights that use airbus, as someone else said.
I'm on my way back from the UK on British airways because they use airbus. Was roughly the same cost as the delta flight using a Boeing.
thre are a some airlines in Europe which are all Airbus, like Easyjet, Iberia, etc. When looking for flights I always try to fly these type of airlines. Prices some times may be 10-20 € more. Worth it for me. Also, the A320 is more comfortable than the 737.
Even with everything considered you’re statistically more likely to die on your way to the airport than on the actual flight.
You’re being irrational.
Amazing how many people here seem to think wanting comfort and a lack of stress and anxiety being cooped up in a tiny, loud tube with a bunch of obnoxious strangers is such an irrational thing.
And what is airbus going to do for you? Did you forget your comment?
Haven't been on an airplane for 5.5 years. From Norway, lived in Australia for 3 years (return trip to Norway twice a year), and now live in Denmark. Closer to the continent, so we drive on holidays instead. And I'm keeping it that way!
i don't fly i just take trains and buses
Hope you don’t drive then. Or bike. Or hell, I think even walk (need to double check that last one). Flying is still by far the safest mode of transportation.
And to those who say “well I’m not in control of the vehicle”, you truly think you are on the road with so many others in such close proximity? At least air traffic is regulated.
Cool. I don't fly because it's loud, obnoxious and uncomfortable.
I don't want to fly on a Boeing in specific because, well, see above.
I’d also add expensive, inconvenient, and demeaning.
*in the US
I haven't seen statistics from other countries.
Attitudes like this reduce the cost of flying and I thank you for that
It's not an "attitude," it's factual. Airplanes are loud, the seats are cramped and uncomfortable, and the passengers are often obnoxious.
Maybe you're okay with unpleasant loud noise, discomfort and annoyance, but considering how much people hate those things in general, I think you're in a small minority.
Active Noise Cancelling headphones (earbuds if you only fly short hop domestic) are your friends. Failing that? Consider earplugs but those tend to exacerbate pressure issues.
Anything short of a car (and even then) in the US is going to be uncomfortable. Buses are somehow worse and even trains aren't great for extended periods of time unless you pay out the nose. Hell, even a Japanese train gets bothersome after a few hours.
What works for me is to sit in the aisle seat. For short hops it doesn't matter. For longer flights? Being able to just get up and walk to the bathroom (or just pretend you are) once an hour goes a long way.
See above regarding anything but a personal car (and even then). But also? ANC Headphones help with this too
Nobody likes the above. But we tend to like the places we are going a whole lot more. And we are willing to put up with a bit of discomfort in exchange for seeing the world.
Cool, I'll just ignore my family with noise-cancelling headphones during a six-hour flight and demand I sit in a specific seat and make my wife and child sit elsewhere.
You do know not everyone flies solo, right?
Have you ever tried noise cancelling headphones? They are great for background noise and conversations that aren't right next to you but you'll have no problem actually talking to your precious family during said flight. In fact, it makes it a lot easier to hear the person next to you
Yeah? That is a pretty normal thing if you aren't buying the most budget of budget tickets. And you wouldn't subject your family to Ryanair, now would you?
You do you. But generally speaking, seats come in 2s and 3s. So you should be fine to sit with them. Or not. Up to you.
So... what is next on the docket to establish why your suffering is unique and the entire world should reconfigure to make you happy?
Except that was absolutely not true the last time I flew. Let me guess, I used the wrong kind of noise canceling headphones.
Really? It's a normal thing to demand that I get the comfortable seat and my wife and daughter don't?
And, apparently, the solution you're offering me is to make them uncomfortable at my expense.
What the fuck are you even talking about? I am reconfiguring by not flying. The rest of the world can do what it wants.
Why do you care if I don't like flying anyway?
Apparently
Nobody is telling you to fly first class. In fact, I specifically mentioned an aisle seat because I am cheap as hell. If you rae buying three adjacent seats you probably have one of those anyway
Yes. I am specifically telling you that you must put your child in a shirt made out of human hairs to flight
I don't give a fuck what you do. In fact, it amuses me that you are the kind of miserable sad sack who has to complain that the entire world is conspiring against you.
But I also think you're spewing nonsense and it is fun to highlight that so that nobody takes you seriously.
This whole discussion and your entire post before that point shows that's just a silly lie.
If you don't give a fuck, go away and stop arguing with me about why I don't enjoy flying.
Please quote me doing that. You can't, because it's a lie.
Edit: If anything is conspiring against me, it's my DNA.
First, your username doesn’t add up. Second, you are going to drive the distance of a 6 hour flight? yeah, comfortable.
No, I am not going to drive the six hour flight across the ocean, hence me saying:
Reading is FUNdamental.
Secondly, I just came back from an 8 1/2 hour drive from Atlanta and I was quite comfortable. Room to stretch out in the car, able to stop when I wanted to, noise wasn't too high, only one mostly non-obnoxious person in the car with me.
It's almost as if you and I are different people, isn't it?
Edit: Also, flying squid fly relatively close to the water and not for long distances. Passenger jets tend to do the opposite. https://phys.org/news/2013-02-bird-plane-squid.html
People have literally consciously stopped booking Boeing flights and it's reduced the cost of tickets. I'm not sure how what I said is in any way controversial
It's not controversial, it's just wrong. It's not an attitude. Not wanting to deal with all that is an attitude.
I hate to break it to you but airbus aircraft are just as loud and cramped as Boeing aircrafts. The people are equally annoying.
You’re still more likely to die on your way to the airport by a significant amount.
But yes keep letting the media control you.
Yes, the media totally controls me because I don't enjoy the discomfort and the noise and the obnoxious people. If the media didn't exist, I'd definitely love loud noise and discomfort and obnoxious people. For sure.
Right because flying an airbus is magically going to change all of that for you. Right sure.
I never said it did.
This is what I said:
Now, can you please quote where I said that Airbus didn't have those issues? Good luck because I never did.
There are plenty of legitimate things to hate on me for, so maybe hate on me for those instead.
Ya flying sucks but if you do it on an airbus it’s magically better.
Only if by "better," you mean built without thousands of faulty or nonconforming parts. In that sense, absolutely.
You did read the article, yes?
Again, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate on me, so why are you making up new ones?
Keep living in fear. That’s what the media wants.
Please quote me being fearful rather than mitigating risk. Good luck.
A320s are less noisy, and have better pressurization and humidity control than 737s. Look it up.
I have looked it up and I have flown in both many many times. They are both very noisy. If there is a difference it’s negligible.