mac_daddy wrote: » My wife and I are due to fly to Providence this Friday with Norwegian. Currently in the process of booking new flights (at our own expense ). Not worth the risk with having two young kids left at home when you consider 2 out 350 operating planes have crashed. I suspect that Norwegian have not grounded their fleet as they know they would go to the wall if they did.
CelticRambler wrote: » Daft attitude, IMO. The reported fault on the Lion Air aircraft is one that the pilots can work with. No-one knows why the Ethiopian aircraft crashed. None of the Norwegian aircraft have had any significant incidents. The risk of your children being orphaned by a dodgy 737-MAX is still tiny compared to the likelihood you'll be killed by an uninsured driver on the M50 on the way to the airport. FWIW, my sister and a bunch of friends are all booked on that Ethiopian flight/route later this year. None of them are changing their reservations.
CelticRambler wrote: » Daft attitude, IMO. The reported fault on the Lion Air aircraft is one that the pilots can work with. No-one knows why the Ethiopian aircraft crashed. None of the Norwegian aircraft have had any significant incidents. The risk of your children being orphaned by a dodgy 737-MAX is still tiny compared to the likelihood you'll be killed by an uninsured driver on the M50 on the way to the airport.
mac_daddy wrote: » Why do folks always throw up the comparison of being killed by uninsured driver? The stats here are different than the generic airline fatality measurements. Not sure if you have kids or not but that's when you re-evaluate risk a little differently.
NH2013 wrote: » https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boeing-737-ban-uk-airspace-caa-ethiopia-crash-a8819301.html?amp Looks like the UK have just grounded the MAX, none allowed through UK airspace, also grounded by Australia earlier on today. That’ll be quite the hit for Norwegian and TUI.
Doylers wrote: » Dammit you beat me :pac:
CelticRambler wrote: » As raging_ninja says, an aerodynamic stall happens when there is not enough air passing fast enough over the wing to generate lift. Without lift, the aircraft falls out of the sky. The "default" setting is for the aircraft to fall out of the sky! The default correction is for the pilot to (try to) put the aircraft into a (steep) dive so that it falls nose-first, thus creating airflow over the wings, generating lift and getting things back to normal. The problems arise when either (a) the pilot can't tell whether they're "nose up" or "nose down" because the instruments are giving misleading information - or the instruments are giving accurate information that doesn't match information coming from other sources [remember that at altitude and in bad weather/nighttime pilots have few or no points of reference]; and (b) the aircraft is so close to the ground that there simply isn't room to dive several thousand feet to get the necessary airflow over the wings.
Storm 10 wrote: » That is a very serious move that will see the IAA follow up with the same ban
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I'm not a flight expert, but it's worth remembering that there have been countless journeys completed on 737 MAX without incident. I personally flew on one twice last summer with Norwegian. The chances of anything happening are still incredibly small.
CelticRambler wrote: » The risk of dying on a Norwegian 737 today are exactly the same as they were last week. Yes, I do have children (four of them) and if any of them were available to take your Providence tickets off your hands, I'd tell them to grab the chance of a bargain. They might get killed by a drunk driver in Dublin or be shot by the police in America, but they will not die in a plane crash over the Atlantic.
theguzman wrote: » The UK and Oman have joined the growing list of countries to ban the Boeing 737 Max. Ireland will surely follow soon, goodbye Norwegian after that.
Casati wrote: » If Norwegian are the only airline left flying the Max, would that change your mind? It’s a big cost to pay for new flights but it would seems that with half the Max fleet grounded or banned from flying that its not OTT to not want to fly on one
Nijmegen wrote: » I would say the IAA will make your choice for you re flying on a MAX soon. Either you'll get something else leased in or you won't be flying with them at all. Norwegian better have good insurance against this sort of thing or they're in trouble.
CelticRambler wrote: » but they will not die in a plane crash over the Atlantic.
theguzman wrote: » Shouldn't Boeing ultimately be responsible for all this?
murphaph wrote: » Hmmm, they have lost 2 of 350 delivered since 2017 (0.6% of fleet lost with all souls aboard). That's not a good statistic at all. You'd buy hundreds of lotto tickets if you had those sorts of odds of winning. I would not put my family on one right now and I would not advise anyone else to either. Maybe the 2 crashes so far are unrelated but if they definitely were then you can be sure Boeing would be publicising the fact.
Nijmegen wrote: » I imagine there's arcane and complex contractual relationships that will kick in here alright, but you can't just magic 350 (sorry, 348) aircraft out of thin air either.
Nijmegen wrote: » Seems Norwegian have bit the bullet. In Swedish but Google translate: Following the flight in Ethiopia, Norwegian puts all its Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft on the ground temporarily.
Casati wrote: » If Norwegian are the only airline left flying the Max, would that change your mind?
