[medecau]

> [...] at this point this airframe is probably the most heavily scrutinized to ever exist

can we drop this take now?

[cjbprime]

The funny thing is that this (bad) take is correct as written -- it is heavily scrutinized.

It's incorrect in the unsaid implication, that extreme scrutiny implies extreme safety.

[randycupertino]

It reminds me of Lance Armstrong's common refrain before he was outed as a drug cheat, "I am the most tested athlete in professional sports and I have never been found guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs!" All while he was a heavy drug user.

[allie1]

If one were to down again, it would immediately be assumed FAA is to blame for not catching yet another issue so them reapproving is putting their reputation on the line.

Also boeing is on thin ice. They would not weather another incident like this.

So in this case, I think it does mean extreme safety.

[pacificmint]

> They would not weather another incident like this.

One would think so, if normal rules applied. But it is hard to see how the US would allow Boeing to not weather this, or any other event.

For defense reasons alone it seems unlikely they would ever allow Boeing to fail.

[bdavis__]

Boeing defense could be broken off and sold to others, in pieces, without impacting the defense of the US. There are not any "pure" military air vehicles being made by Boeing right now (T-X trainer). F15 and F18 used to be owned by someone else, they could be again.

[allie1]

The customer is the ultimate casting vote. If it became unsafe altogether to fly on new boeings, airlines would be forced to switch to airbus.

Defense will remain a segment, but instead of 25% of revenue of the company it’ll be 50-70%, with the the commercial segment nosediving

[matt2000]

The Hindenburg has also now been heavily scrutinized. Good to go.