[liability]

You have the wrong standard of proof. Boeing and the FAA should be erroring on the side of caution, not hiding behind innocent until proven guilty.

And in case it's not totally clear, the caution should be for the passengers, not shareholders.

> "its AOA sensor was known to be faulty."

The plane was what, two months old? It should have been non-lethal even if a troop of rabid baboons was hired to maintain it.

[geofft]

I don't think that's actually rational, in the sense of minimizing loss of life. If you ground all these planes worldwide, what's going to happen? Either people will take older planes, which are in worse condition, or they'll take smaller planes / alternative routes, which are more dangerous, or they'll take cars, which are much more deadly.

Grounding the planes only guarantees saving lives if people stay at home instead, which isn't going to happen. If Boeing legitimately believes these planes are still no riskier than older ones (and it sounds like they do and that they have a reason for that belief), they're saving lives by keeping them in the air.

[7e]

That's not remotely true. The fatality rate from air travel is so low that taking alternative jets will be much safer. The new plane's selling point is efficiency so it's used on long haul routes which nobody is going to drive.

[4BxHkLgUVBG]

Risk on taking “alternative old plane” is super low and “Boeing 737 max” is super high, so who are you trying to lie to?

[manicdee]

If my routine maintenance breaks the steering wheel linkage in my car, does the resultant crash mean that the manufacturer did not build enough safety into the vehicle to protect it from steering errors induced by negligent mechanics?

[speedplane]

> If my routine maintenance breaks the steering wheel linkage in my car, does the resultant crash mean that the manufacturer did not build enough safety into the vehicle to protect it from steering errors induced by negligent mechanics?

If it happens repeatedly, then probably yes.