Not every emergency landing means there is a fundamental issue with the company. These things happen. If the plane can divert to Denver when it is flying over Montana, they clearly are still well in control.
But you’re comparing to a health emergency which is not the case of this one. That’s false equivalency and the wrong argument here. The article is relevant. It’s the topic. it states what kind of emergency landing it was. It was not a health emergency.
No. You go away and stop spreading misinformation and derailing from what actually is being discussed. You brought nothing of value to this discussion and acting in poor faith.
That’s all well and good, but emergency landings for any reason are the worst. At best, it’s a huge inconvenience. I had one a few years back because a passenger was acting like an asshole, and it cost a full day of my limited vacation, so I’d really rather not have one even if the plane is safe enough for them to land.
I dunno. I’d say crashes are worse than emergency landings. But then again, I haven’t had the experience of an emergency landing, like you have. So I might be in the wrong here.
Did I say they weren’t? My point was that emergency landings aren’t a great time and I’d rather not have one, not that they’re on the level of a crash. It’d just be nice to not have either of those things.
Do you know what an emergency landing does? It means there are now hundreds of people stuck in an airport they’re not supposed to be in, so airline staff then have to try to find spots for them on other flights that are often full, if not overbooked, which causes a domino effect that can last days. It means people miss connections, so they have to figure those out, too. The flight I was on, someone missed their kid’s wedding because it took so long to get them to their destination. It made airport staff’s next 24 hours hell. Oh, and the woman who caused it lost her job and had to pay tens of thousands in fines because it’s taken that seriously. It’s not just, “oopsie, well let’s get a different plane and reboard all the same people.”
It’s not dramatic to say that emergency landings suck, and everyone should want to avoid them. And if Boeing planes are having that many issues, that’s a problem. Guarantee you that the airline doesn’t think it’s ok, nor do any of the people on that flight.
Yet calling them the “worst” is. You only said that to get engagement about your sad story. Going on a rant about it when you get a different type of engagement you hoped for is pretty dramatic.
I really advise you to think about what you write before posting. Yes you had a bad experience. No it wasn’t the worst thing in the world, not even close.
It was literally for the reason out of caution that there was an issue with the aircraft in this case. Might not be the best case to be defending Boeing on this one.
A) Boeing doesn’t make the engines
B) These things do happen. It doesn’t point to a structural issue immediately. There will be an investigation. Only afterwards can you reach conclusion on the root cause and who might be to blame. But referring to A) it most likely isn’t Boeing in this case.
Not every emergency landing means there is a fundamental issue with the company. These things happen. If the plane can divert to Denver when it is flying over Montana, they clearly are still well in control.
deleted by creator
Emergency landings for mechanical issues are also very common. Check out VASAviation sometime.
Or, check out https://avherald.com/
This was not one, though.
deleted by creator
There is an article that expands on what the headline says. The link is there in the title. You could click on it….and …I dunno, read it maybe.
deleted by creator
But you’re comparing to a health emergency which is not the case of this one. That’s false equivalency and the wrong argument here. The article is relevant. It’s the topic. it states what kind of emergency landing it was. It was not a health emergency.
deleted by creator
No. You go away and stop spreading misinformation and derailing from what actually is being discussed. You brought nothing of value to this discussion and acting in poor faith.
You don’t even have to read the article. Just click the link. The first bullet point of the summary states:
That’s all well and good, but emergency landings for any reason are the worst. At best, it’s a huge inconvenience. I had one a few years back because a passenger was acting like an asshole, and it cost a full day of my limited vacation, so I’d really rather not have one even if the plane is safe enough for them to land.
I dunno. I’d say crashes are worse than emergency landings. But then again, I haven’t had the experience of an emergency landing, like you have. So I might be in the wrong here.
Did I say they weren’t? My point was that emergency landings aren’t a great time and I’d rather not have one, not that they’re on the level of a crash. It’d just be nice to not have either of those things.
To be fair, you did in fact say that “emergency landings for any reason are the worst.”
Come on, don’t be that guy. It’s obviously a figure of speech.
I won’t be that guy. If you stop being a drama queen.
Do you know what an emergency landing does? It means there are now hundreds of people stuck in an airport they’re not supposed to be in, so airline staff then have to try to find spots for them on other flights that are often full, if not overbooked, which causes a domino effect that can last days. It means people miss connections, so they have to figure those out, too. The flight I was on, someone missed their kid’s wedding because it took so long to get them to their destination. It made airport staff’s next 24 hours hell. Oh, and the woman who caused it lost her job and had to pay tens of thousands in fines because it’s taken that seriously. It’s not just, “oopsie, well let’s get a different plane and reboard all the same people.”
It’s not dramatic to say that emergency landings suck, and everyone should want to avoid them. And if Boeing planes are having that many issues, that’s a problem. Guarantee you that the airline doesn’t think it’s ok, nor do any of the people on that flight.
Yet calling them the “worst” is. You only said that to get engagement about your sad story. Going on a rant about it when you get a different type of engagement you hoped for is pretty dramatic.
I really advise you to think about what you write before posting. Yes you had a bad experience. No it wasn’t the worst thing in the world, not even close.
Yep. Incidents are merely incidents, but also trends are trends.
It was literally for the reason out of caution that there was an issue with the aircraft in this case. Might not be the best case to be defending Boeing on this one.
A) Boeing doesn’t make the engines B) These things do happen. It doesn’t point to a structural issue immediately. There will be an investigation. Only afterwards can you reach conclusion on the root cause and who might be to blame. But referring to A) it most likely isn’t Boeing in this case.
You seem to have reached a conclusion already. Practice what you preach.
They are saying that because Boeing doesn’t make the engines.