Yes, this is negligent behavior, yes, Boeing and the FAA should have their come-to-Jesus moment. But the odds of a crash on a MAX for you are one in five hundred thousand. Put another way you have a 0.0002% chance of being involved in a crash.
You have an 0.01% chance of dying each year being involved in a car accident in the United States. That's 50X higher risk. [1] On a per-trip basis it's pretty much the same.
Normally, of course, driving is much more dangerous than flying. On a MAX8 it's ball-park (based on an incredibly limited sample size).
Right but plane is not the only thing that matters. For instance Allegiant has no 737s (only Airbus equipment) but one of America’s worst safety records. Take care you’re not cutting off your nose to spite your face. Policy, training, hub locations, safety culture all matter too.
Your approach also fails to take into account the non-uniform distribution of accidents at take off and landing vs at cruise, so if you take a 3 stop itinerary on an Airbus-only airline with a worse safety track record, you may be at more risk than a nonstop on an even unpatched MAX.
Yes, although my question remains: is it worth putting yourself at more risk than flying a MAX just to protest the risk of flying the MAX? I understand these things are irrational, however humans are notoriously bad at managing the incredibly low risk of something very bad happening. There's practically no chance of anything happening to you one way or the other and I think it's easy to forget that.
Each passenger has a 0.0002% chance independently as the risk was measured per flight and not per person. Each person on a flight has an independent chance but the effect is to all passengers.
You can divide that way to yield the risk per passenger, but multiply back out to obtain the per flight amount which is what’s relevant given the group impact.
