5 ms·

I could see justification for clawback on any stock awarded or exercised for the executives responsible for 737 Max problems, but I don’t see any evidence that

by jmpman 7y ago

I could see justification for clawback on any stock awarded or exercised for the executives responsible for 737 Max problems, but I don’t see any evidence that the 737 Max is unredeemable.

addicted44 7y ago
There likely appears to be only 1 way the Max can be redeemed, and that is for Boeing to accept it's a different enough plane that 737 pilots need new training for it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- caconym_ 7y ago
  Yes. Call it a new airplane, rip out the ridiculous and irresponsible hack that is the MCAS, and go from there.
beamatronic 7y ago
It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane
- robmiller 7y ago
  Yup, I'm sure Amazon can get them at a discount for a Prime Air fleet.
- joachim4 7y ago
  As a consumer there is no way I will never book a flight on a 737 Max (even if those planes are allowed to fly again), and if I have the choice between flying a Boeing and an Airbus, I will buy the flight on an Airbus. Boeing clearly needs to get back the flyers trust.
  - briandear 7y ago
    Is Airbus without problems?
adwi 7y ago
It’s irredeemable on its name alone at this point.
- amyjess 7y ago
  Just like the DC-10, eh?
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Someone just needs to find a lost Hubbard manuscript detailing how souls will be saved by flying into volcanoes on the futuristic 737-Max.
  - amyjess 7y ago
    Arrrgh. This was supposed to go under the "It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane" comment. Not sure what went wrong. Hey mods, is it possible to attach it to that one? Or if not, just kill this one and let me know so I can repost it there...
- Reason077 7y ago
  The name is likely to be changed when it returns to flight. Some undelivered Ryanair 737-MAX have already been painted with the model number 737-8200. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-...
  - amyjess 7y ago
    If they do this when it returns to flight, I will no longer fly any carrier that operates 737s in any capacity. Which sadly means all my future flights will probably be on Spirit, but I'm willing to take the hit for my safety.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      That's crazy, think about what you're saying. Yes, this is negligent behavior, yes, Boeing and the FAA should have their come-to-Jesus moment. But the odds of a crash on a MAX for you are one in five hundred thousand. Put another way you have a 0.0002% chance of being involved in a crash. You have an 0.01% chance of dying each year being involved in a car accident in the United States. That's 50X higher risk. [1] On a per-trip basis it's pretty much the same. Normally, of course, driving is much more dangerous than flying. On a MAX8 it's ball-park (based on an incredibly limited sample size). [1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortalit...

by jmpman 7y ago

I could see justification for clawback on any stock awarded or exercised for the executives responsible for 737 Max problems, but I don’t see any evidence that the 737 Max is unredeemable.

addicted44 7y ago

There likely appears to be only 1 way the Max can be redeemed, and that is for Boeing to accept it's a different enough plane that 737 pilots need new training for it.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
caconym_ 7y ago
Yes. Call it a new airplane, rip out the ridiculous and irresponsible hack that is the MCAS, and go from there.

beamatronic 7y ago

It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane

robmiller 7y ago
Yup, I'm sure Amazon can get them at a discount for a Prime Air fleet.
joachim4 7y ago
As a consumer there is no way I will never book a flight on a 737 Max (even if those planes are allowed to fly again), and if I have the choice between flying a Boeing and an Airbus, I will buy the flight on an Airbus. Boeing clearly needs to get back the flyers trust.
- briandear 7y ago
  Is Airbus without problems?

adwi 7y ago

It’s irredeemable on its name alone at this point.

amyjess 7y ago
Just like the DC-10, eh?
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Someone just needs to find a lost Hubbard manuscript detailing how souls will be saved by flying into volcanoes on the futuristic 737-Max.
- amyjess 7y ago
  Arrrgh. This was supposed to go under the "It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane" comment. Not sure what went wrong. Hey mods, is it possible to attach it to that one? Or if not, just kill this one and let me know so I can repost it there...
Reason077 7y ago
The name is likely to be changed when it returns to flight. Some undelivered Ryanair 737-MAX have already been painted with the model number 737-8200. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-...
- amyjess 7y ago
  If they do this when it returns to flight, I will no longer fly any carrier that operates 737s in any capacity. Which sadly means all my future flights will probably be on Spirit, but I'm willing to take the hit for my safety.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    That's crazy, think about what you're saying. Yes, this is negligent behavior, yes, Boeing and the FAA should have their come-to-Jesus moment. But the odds of a crash on a MAX for you are one in five hundred thousand. Put another way you have a 0.0002% chance of being involved in a crash. You have an 0.01% chance of dying each year being involved in a car accident in the United States. That's 50X higher risk. [1] On a per-trip basis it's pretty much the same. Normally, of course, driving is much more dangerous than flying. On a MAX8 it's ball-park (based on an incredibly limited sample size). [1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortalit...