[mannykannot]

On the one hand, I personally feel that trying to avoid the Maxes specifically, once they are allowed back in service, would be an excess of caution that overemphasizes the legacy of one issue. On the other hand, could they have found a better way of sending the message that they think the problem is passenger perceptions, rather than in systems engineering and adequate pilot training?

[magduf]

It's not an excess of caution, and it isn't one issue. This whole debacle has shown that safety is not a priority at Boeing at all, with misstep after misstep; we've only scratched the surface of the cancer running deep within this company.

Remember, when the first plane crashed, they tried to blame the pilots. Then the second plane crashed, and they continued to insist it was safe. All the other nations' air safety agencies had to ground the plane before the FAA would. Then after that they continued to refuse to admit fault, they wanted to make a small, lame patch to the MCAS software instead of making it triply redundant, they didn't want to retrain pilots, I could go on and on. In short, they didn't really want to fix the issue completely, they just wanted to gloss over it and get the planes back in the air as quickly and cheaply as they could, which proves my original point: safety is not a priority with Boeing today. And they certainly haven't fixed their internal management or engineering to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

So why would you trust this company at all at this point?

[matz1]

I personally would not worry if my next flight is Boeing 737 max, the probability it will crash still very low, even if it do crash, I will be dead anyway it won't matter.

Doesn't mean I trust Boeing, I trust market force, I trust that other people will keep the uproar to keep airline in check.

[cabaalis]

> I trust that other people will keep the uproar to keep airline in check.

I agree with you, and expect that engineers/regulators to do their jobs. But I think this is a form of the bystander effect. [1] I'm not sure what we can do proactively except be cognizant of what we choose to ride in.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

[magduf]

The engineers and regulators have already proven they can't be trusted to do their jobs. Thankfully, the EASA has stepped up to do some proper regulation now that they've seen that they can't trust the FAA any more, and are keeping the plane grounded.

[onemoresoop]

I personally would not worry if my next flight is Boeing 737 max either but I would worry if any members of my family were on it.

[AaronM]

I mean, its not like they have had a stellar record when it comes to covering up previous issues with their planes.

https://www.themilitant.com/1997/617/617_34.html http://old.seattletimes.com/news/local/737/part04/

[cm2187]

To be honest even without the fix, the risk for a passenger taking a single trip on this plane it still negligible. It is not really rational to worry as a passenger. It is when you work all year long on one of these planes that the risk becomes unacceptable.

[salawat]

I despise these types of arguments. Look I get the statistical argument; but take a moment and consider the enormity of what Boeing has done here.

Their best selling plane in history is also that which carries the most blatant stain of corruption and negligence. If Boeing gets away with this type of behavior, we really do essentially break the system by acknowledging that as long as you get big enough, it's totally fine to cheat; even in a life/safety critical industrial vertical. Sure, the PR will suck, but the network effects will ensure you keep rolling unharmed because you're too big to be allowed to fail.

This is way more than any one person's convenience at stake. This is any hint of actual systemic integrity that is at jeopardy.

This is the danger of excessive centralization and consolidation. Yes, synergy happens, and money gets unlocked, but the consequences of failure also get amplified, becoming of such a scale the entire infrastructure starts getting jeopardized. More seperate, redundant pieces at least ensures there is buffer to keep some semblance of stability in case of catastrophic failure of one particular agent in the system. When the system is essentially one agent, you're flying on a prayer nothing goes wrong. When you only have two realistic options, it isn't much better.

[lotsofpulp]

The effective solution isn't flying this one particular plane, the solution is to get involved in politics and work at getting people elected who will provide the resources necessary to the government agencies responsible for certifying safety.

Of course, in the US, we do the exact opposite by going for the candidates that harp on about waste and cutting down government in favor of free market solutions even when they aren't tenable. Unless of course, it's a terrorist attack, then we can unleash the floodgates of taxpayer funds to agencies tasked with violating our civil liberties.

[phkahler]

Without any fix the plane is not safe. The MAX variant has not been around long enough to have 2 crashes, let alone 2 with no corrective action.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

I'd probably agree, depending on how this all resolves once they're in service. That said, it's an individual by individual decision. If my friend is afraid of heights, which I consider irrational, and I lie to them to get them somewhere high, taking that choice from them, I'm still being a huge asshole.