Good point. I agree that scientific models capture real patterns and aren't wholly subjective. I agree that the models and that their technological applications are therefore liable to work.
The subjectivity enters the picture when we ask how we understand the meaning of "airplane." What is an airplane, fundamentally speaking? There's the conventional definition, sure, which keeps us on the same page. But what are airplanes in the cosmic context, given the entire sweep of our species in our relation to the universe? How we understand anything is partly subjective to the extent that we depart from that perspective and simplify matters for some practical purpose.
I certainly wouldn't fly in an airplane designed by a philosopher. Nor would I trust the philosophical presuppositions of a scientistic repudiator of philosophy.