(Woof, sorry for the long comment) A little thought experiment, and I want to be clear, its apparent Boeing screwed up big time, but I also expect my airline to

(Woof, sorry for the long comment) A little thought experiment, and I want to be clear, its apparent Boeing screwed up big time, but I also expect my airline to make every effort to incorporate all safety features. Since it’s a bit of an ethical gray area where cutting edge or expensive safety features are knowingly foregone, I haven’t seen the fact discussed concerning these airlines’ culpability for choosing to acquire aircraft without safety features to save money (aka, to make more money), just like Boeing marks up the cost of these features to make money. I realize that the AoA disagree is a safety feature that would have informed pilot of a bad Boeing design, but are there other sensors and features that could have been offered by Boeing, but aren’t available or aren’t purchased for similar reasons. If it was an option on the order sheet, and they had technical consulting to assist with specificying the plane, then they made an active decision not to beef up on safety. I’m sure there are better examples that have a higher probability of improving safety, but for some fun examples, where are the massive, inflatable, roofmounted airfoils that inflate like big airbag parachutes in the event of an impending crash. What about 5 pt harnesses for all passenger? Where are the uniformed armed security squad on every flight to deter hostage situations? What about full situational awareness mesh network radar comms a la the F-35? What about no carryons allowed in the cabin to reduce flammability and airborne objects during crashes? Each of these things offers a potential, incrementally-increasing level of safety for passengers, that are not taken up by the market. For an analogy, If my cabby didn’t buy curtain airbags from the Ford, and I get my head smashed in a wreck caused by a malfunctioning component elsewhere in the car, doesn’t the cab company still have some culpability for skimping in passenger safety? If not in that scenario, what about a poor level of maintenance (but still technically compliant) of the vehicle? At some point, for contracts of carriage, it’s up to the carrier to establish an expected, acceptable level of safety for its customers. Again, it sounds like Boeing bears the lead blame, and it wasn’t clear the features as sold offered valuable data to the pilot in the event of an emergency, but I also expect my airline/carrier to provide as much safety is commercially reasonable. Just like when reviewing legal contracts or lines of code, if a line item is added with no obvious reason for existing, one must ask “why is this item here?”