[kortilla]

Two things:

1. You would be surprised at how normal talk like that is in huge corporations due to internal politics. People bad-mouth other projects that are getting limelight, taking away resources, etc. A more benign example is how often Google employees rag on the GCP engineers as being inferior, which has more to do with the money flowing into GCP than merit.

2. People are irrational about safety, despite data showing something is ok. There were droves of people that said they would never get on a fly-by-wire plane (Airbus), despite having no evidence to support their fears.

[ReptileMan]

In pilot lingo there are four levels of trust in a pilot (ascending order):

1. I won't fly with you 2. I will fly with you 3. I will fly with you and take my shoes off during take off 4. I will let my family fly with you.

This phrase used verbatim means quite a lot.

[fingerlocks]

If what you’re saying is true, this is a full reversal in the meaning of the leaked conversation.

You’re implying the employees not only trust the MAX, their trust is such that they are comfortable kicking back with their shoes off on a flight.

[jpmoral]

How'd you get there?

>"Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No."

[thaumasiotes]

Conceptualize it as a three-point scale of trust:

1: I will fly with you.

2: I will fly with you without even wearing shoes. (Realistically, I can't imagine why shoes would make a difference.)

3: I would let my family fly with you.

If you say you wouldn't put your family in a Max, then your trust in the Max is not at level 3. Logically, this is a very weak constraint; it only shows that trust < 3. Maybe trust is 2. That's what fingerlocks is saying.

However, vernacular language generally doesn't work that way. A common mode might come from the following train of thought:

- I don't trust this plane.

- How much do I not trust it? The MAXIMUM LEVEL, LEVEL 3!

- "I would not let my family fly on this plane."

Here, from a logical perspective, the person has confused "lack of level 3 trust" with "level 3 distrust". This is bad in a math class (the scope of the negation is wrong -- [not [level 3 trust]] vs [level 3 [not trust]]), but routine in ordinary speech.

[perl4ever]

This is missing the forest for the trees. The context is a passenger aircraft whose normal job is to transport families, so "level 3" is all that matters.

[fingerlocks]

No, the context is internal communications between employees during the design and construction phase of the aircraft.

Imagine if your conversations of various bugs for a software project that you were building were released after the fact, what do you think they would sound like out of context?

[ReptileMan]

Shoes = evacuation ready.