[dreamcompiler]

The Boeing of those days was a different company than Boeing today, and the public knows it. That Boeing was driven by engineers with safety as their highest priority. Today's Boeing is driven by suits with profit as their highest priority. This Boeing has lost the public's trust. Even if they fix MCAS, how do we know there aren't other safety corners cut in the design just waiting to kill somebody?

[chopin]

Not only Boeing lost public trust but presumably the FAA as well. At least outside US this may have even more severe implications.

Boeing better not loses one more plane due to design issues.

[IAmEveryone]

The "suits" didn't just take over last year. The complaint is at least as old as their move to Chicago in 2001. That would at least put the 787 in the same class of "suit-designed" aircraft.

And yet, air travel today is far safer than it has ever been, the 737 non-withstanding. Considering air travel has increased by almost an order of magnitude since the heydays of engineering-run Boeing in the 60s, and fatalities have decreased by a similar factor, air travel today is about 70x safer than it was in the past.

Based on this data, any nostalgic theories of how safety today is being ruined by <x> are really hard to defend.

[slumdev]

> That would at least put the 787 in the same class of "suit-designed" aircraft.

The 787 is a suit-designed aircraft. Composite materials are not ready for prime time. They are a gamble that Boeing suits have made against passenger lives. If the bet pays out, the planes save a miniscule amount of fuel compared to planes made of traditional materials. If the bet does not pay out, people die.

Only a few months ago, we discovered more 737 problems. These were unrelated to MCAS. Instead, they affected the part that holds the wing to the fuselage:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/29/boeing...

[Robotbeat]

Strongly disagree there. The material is perfectly fine, in part due to massive safety margins.

Composites have been in use in crewed aerospace vehicles for ~55 years (or arguably >80 years).

Composite aircraft were developed in the early 1960s, although first use of composites goes back to the 1930s, and even the Space Shuttle developed in the 1970s made extensive use of composites... not just carbon fiber and kevlar, but also materials considered cutting edge today, like metal-matrix boron fiber and carbon-carbon.

The materials are perfectly ready, if you're willing to pay the cost of testing, analysis, and margin. It took just ~35 years to go from Wright Brothers and their wooden aircraft to all-aluminum pressurized airliners (and yeah, there were folks who were skeptical of aluminum at that time as well).

Given at least 50 years in extensive use, I can't see how waiting longer will help[0]. The alternative is permanent stasis.

[0]More analysis or more margin or more testing is an argument I could buy into, but not being "too early for prime time."

[ladyattis]

"Composite materials are not ready for prime time."

Wow, I didn't know the 787 was built with that in mind. Seriously, my dad has worked at Beechcraft since the 80s and he remembers when they tried that nonsense with the Starship. It's like no one remembers why the idea was scrapped beyond the initial costs (composites have to have aluminum weave to allow lightning strikes and static discharge dissipate through the wings otherwise it'll blow off said wing).

[RomanBob]

people still die more driving to the airport than in a plane crash.

The fact that people smoke, drive while texting, drive drunk, don't exercise and so on, show that they don't really care about not dying. They just like to complain when dying is caused by somebody else.

[oska]

> They just like to complain when dying is caused by somebody else.

Which is completely legitimate.

[rusticpenn]

Should we have an eligibility criteria for people who can be allowed to complain?

[braindeath]

The data we have is the 737 MAX itself that stands out in the backdrop of ever increasing safety. That happened. The 787 possibly being a safe plane is irrelevant and doesn’t change that.

> And yet, air travel today is far safer than it has ever been, the 737 non-withstanding.

Boeing doesn’t get to take credit for all the advances in air safety in the past 40 years.

[DuskStar]

> Boeing doesn’t get to take credit for all the advances in air safety in the past 40 years.

No, but they can certainly take credit for some of those advances.

[dmix]

The 1990s of those initial failures also predated the information heavy internet hyper analysis and outrage machines

[nosianu]

It's the messenger's fault. Of course!

What arguments do you have that show that lots and lots of articles about about Boeings culture change are all wrong or insignificant (not a contributor to the Max's issues)?

I'm also not sure why you think a heuristic that uses amount of outrage as an inverse measure of the validity of an issue is a useful one. I would assume the connection is either non-existent or very weak, meaning you cannot infer anything useful about an issue from how much it is being discussed in the media and in public forums.

[jakemal]

The point of the comment was that people likely cared less because people heard about it significantly less.

[extempore]

You are reading a great deal into an innocuous comment.

[piva00]

Given what we know now, after the outrage took out of the closet a lot of information previously obscured and out of the limelight, about Boeing's issues in production and design and the regulatory capture of the FAA: do you still think this whole backlash against the 737 MAX is purely the internet hyper analysis and outrage machine?

[dmix]

Nope, that wasn't my point obviously. Just highlighting it was a different time for media and analysis.