[matt4077]

The morality of such choices is complicated.

Airbags and, to a lesser degree, ABS definitely add substantial costs to cars. So it wasn't entirely unreasonable to ask customers for extra money. Yet subsequently, as they became cheaper and proved their potential to safe lives, they became mandatory. If I had been in a position to make decisions on this, I believe I would have argued for charging costs only for these features. Volvo's publicly announced decision not to enforce its patent on seat belts is example of a company with a mindset that goes beyond pure profit.

Judging Boeing's strategy here obviously requires a better idea of what they were charging and the actual costs of installing these features.

There may well be an argument that these systems are not comparable to airbags, but rather "pay us $X,XXX extra, and your car will not have a 10% chance of randomly blowing up".

[CaptainZapp]

Isn't Boeing's stance a bit akin to the thug, which threatens your restaurant?

"Nice plane you have here. Would be a shame if it crashes..."