[airhead969]

I have no opinion about flying on this particular plane.

It's not so much MCAS, electric trim, this, or that.

The bigger issue is it's too complicated, has too many features, and the FAA can't adequately oversee testing and certification all the way down the engineering stack. Furthermore, because of pressures to save a buck, Boeing is willing to cut corners and sacrifice safety by slapping a plane together without properly engineering or testing it. Because of this behavior, it's difficult to know how many other problems are lurking around like in the 787.

[worker767424]

This is every commercial plane, though. We've traded more frequent crashes due to human error for fewer, more spectacular crashes due to how complex planes have become.

[airhead969]

False equivalency and hasty generalization that equivocates every plane as having the same risks when they clearly don't, and ignoring testing and training process improvements. Also, an oversimplification that somehow fundamentals of aviation are shifted as a finite resource over to automation when that's clearly not the case.

737 classics are simpler and reliable.

The NG's randomly have hidden structural weaknesses exposed during runway overruns and hard landings when the fuselage breaks up because of Ducommun and Boeing negligence.

The MAX is a steaming pile that may be a white elephant around Boeing's neck.

The 787 is notoriously-bad.

The 777 is pretty good.

Airbus has had much more automation for years. Are they dropping out of the sky? Maybe they manage their complexity better than Boeing, who hires underpaid engineers to work on things that they're really not qualified to do.

[bonzini]

As a passenger the 787 is a fabulous aircraft.