>Boeing has made some fantastic planes. Their entire history shouldn’t be marginalized because of events in the past few years. Yes it should. This is airwort

>Boeing has made some fantastic planes. Their entire history shouldn’t be marginalized because of events in the past few years. Yes it should. This is airworthiness; this stuff has to work. You don't give someone a pass on safety-critical stuff because "they usually do a good job". The company's past processes are irrelevant because it's their current corpus of airworthiness procedures that affects the continued airworthiness of their products that are still flying today. The company has demonstrated a serious problem and until it has demonstrated sufficient corrective actions taken to correct the problems observed then everything the company touches should be considered suspect. The fact that Boeing also made B-29s 70 years ago means exactly nothing except for PR purposes or to fanboys. Boeing has no doubt made some changes, but I'll reserve judgment as to whether or not those changes are sufficient because I don't work for a Regulator and don't have the complete picture.