3 ms·

I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't be aware of those well-known facts about the 737. I'm also not sure why you'd reply to my comment when you clearly either

I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't be aware of those well-known facts about the 737. I'm also not sure why you'd reply to my comment when you clearly either haven't read it or have no interest in actually replying to the substance of it.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I get that you're rightfully upset at Boeing for trying to skip the proper regulatory testing processes. I am too. But you are not meaningfully contesting my point, that a fixed 737 MAX is a safer aircraft to be flying in. What would you suggest? Mothballing the MAX line for a wholly new aircraft? Arguably the MAX has significant flight testing time in production, to which one defect was found and is being remedied. A new aircraft would have less testing comparatively, and as noted, older aircraft really aren't inherently safer, as the 737's history shows. My point was that the MAX will likely be the safest choice to fly in, and I don't think you offered up any logical argument saying otherwise.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  > What would you suggest? I would suggest a fine-toothed audit of every single change made in the MAX aircraft, with particular attention paid to whether said changes were made solely in the interest of skirting regulations to sell more planes faster. Because that is the point: Boeing's decision-making process is now highly suspect. It is pretty clear that the MCAS would not exist in anything like its current (flawed) form if Boeing hadn't been trying to avoid the pilot retraining requirement. This is not a typical life-cycle for an engineering defect/flaw.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  > MAX will likely be the safest choice to fly in Hell no, I'll take Airbus or any other manufacturer over this crapware any day, even if I have to pay extra for the tickets. Boeing lost any trust in how they handled this, for very, very long time. This topic is currently way beyond pure engineering issue, most human beings including me consider morality as quite an important aspect for example. Unless I hear about some significant and measurable shift in the way company thinks and operates regarding to safety (nothing in the PR stuff discussed here), its a shady company with profits-above-safety mentality. No, thank you I can vote with my money

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

I get that you're rightfully upset at Boeing for trying to skip the proper regulatory testing processes. I am too. But you are not meaningfully contesting my point, that a fixed 737 MAX is a safer aircraft to be flying in. What would you suggest? Mothballing the MAX line for a wholly new aircraft? Arguably the MAX has significant flight testing time in production, to which one defect was found and is being remedied. A new aircraft would have less testing comparatively, and as noted, older aircraft really aren't inherently safer, as the 737's history shows. My point was that the MAX will likely be the safest choice to fly in, and I don't think you offered up any logical argument saying otherwise.

caconym_ 8y ago
> What would you suggest? I would suggest a fine-toothed audit of every single change made in the MAX aircraft, with particular attention paid to whether said changes were made solely in the interest of skirting regulations to sell more planes faster. Because that is the point: Boeing's decision-making process is now highly suspect. It is pretty clear that the MCAS would not exist in anything like its current (flawed) form if Boeing hadn't been trying to avoid the pilot retraining requirement. This is not a typical life-cycle for an engineering defect/flaw.
saiya-jin 8y ago
> MAX will likely be the safest choice to fly in Hell no, I'll take Airbus or any other manufacturer over this crapware any day, even if I have to pay extra for the tickets. Boeing lost any trust in how they handled this, for very, very long time. This topic is currently way beyond pure engineering issue, most human beings including me consider morality as quite an important aspect for example. Unless I hear about some significant and measurable shift in the way company thinks and operates regarding to safety (nothing in the PR stuff discussed here), its a shady company with profits-above-safety mentality. No, thank you I can vote with my money