[jwr]

This is excellent news. The FAA has lots its credibility by rubber-stamping whatever Boeing said in recent years. This will both mean an independent review (and re-certification of what is a effectively different airplane) and additional pressure on the FAA to actually do its job.

[AmVess]

Not recent years. Decades. FAA has been under regulatory capture by Boeing for decades.

The world ignoring anything the FAA has to say about anything is a stance that's long overdue.

[vinay427]

> FAA has been under regulatory capture by Boeing for decades.

> The world ignoring anything the FAA has to say about anything is a stance that's long overdue.

I don't see how the second part follows from the first. Can you elaborate on how regulatory capture by Boeing affects FAA regulations on everything they do?

[michaelt]

If, due to regulatory capture, the FAA has been wrongly approving Boeing designs, the rest of the world is wise not to blindly accept FAA approval.

Of course, outside of the specific domain of approving Boeing designs, if the FAA says something isn't safe, or produces a report on a crash or suchlike, the world may want to pay heed.

[icebraining]

So the safest mode of travel is the one without real regulation for decades?

[jquery]

I really think HNers in this thread are overselling the so-called "lack of regulation" that airlines and jet makers operate under. My father worked in the industry for decades, it is highly regulated to the extent few industries are more regulated (medicine, perhaps?)