3 ms·

Yes, safety is good for business. But there is no indication that safety was the consideration in this decision. The fact that they cancelled basically all outs

by _ph_ 6y ago

Yes, safety is good for business. But there is no indication that safety was the consideration in this decision. The fact that they cancelled basically all outstanding orders of any airplane points to the simple fact that they just don't want to buy any new airplane. So putting the 737 Max in the headline produces exactly the wrong impression.

natch 6y ago
That’s fine. I’ll feel safer flying their airline due to my perceptions about Boeing and that makes their business incrementally more likely to survive. They know this, too, so I would not be surprised they want customers aware, regardless of any other underlying financial reasons. By making customers aware of this as though it’s more of a safety thing than you believe it is, even if you’re right, which you probably are, everyone wins. Well, everything except Boeing. Too bad the article didn’t do that. If anything the article bent over backwards way too far to assiduously avoid mentioning the safety issue at all, when it perfectly well could have since it is so glaring, so I don’t see what your concern is. > putting the 737 Max in the headline produces exactly the wrong impression. Perhaps you did not glance beyond the headline and fell victim to your own well-justified negative preconceptions about the Max.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  No, you did. You consider this a safety related matter, not me. Personally, I think the MAX (after the fix) is the safest 737 available. If safety played a role in their decision, you should also consider Airbus unsafe, as they are cancelling also their Airbus orders.
  - natch 6y ago
    > you should also consider Airbus unsafe That would be a simplistic logic error, which you are making, not me, as evidenced by your suggestion here and by your previously stated belief that a headline simply mentioning an airline model caused an impression of unsafeness. To me the deaths in Boeing 737 Max incidents and the revelations about mismanagement are much more reliable indicators of unsafeness.

by _ph_ 6y ago

natch 6y ago

That’s fine. I’ll feel safer flying their airline due to my perceptions about Boeing and that makes their business incrementally more likely to survive. They know this, too, so I would not be surprised they want customers aware, regardless of any other underlying financial reasons. By making customers aware of this as though it’s more of a safety thing than you believe it is, even if you’re right, which you probably are, everyone wins. Well, everything except Boeing. Too bad the article didn’t do that. If anything the article bent over backwards way too far to assiduously avoid mentioning the safety issue at all, when it perfectly well could have since it is so glaring, so I don’t see what your concern is. > putting the 737 Max in the headline produces exactly the wrong impression. Perhaps you did not glance beyond the headline and fell victim to your own well-justified negative preconceptions about the Max.

_ph_ 6y ago
No, you did. You consider this a safety related matter, not me. Personally, I think the MAX (after the fix) is the safest 737 available. If safety played a role in their decision, you should also consider Airbus unsafe, as they are cancelling also their Airbus orders.
- natch 6y ago
  > you should also consider Airbus unsafe That would be a simplistic logic error, which you are making, not me, as evidenced by your suggestion here and by your previously stated belief that a headline simply mentioning an airline model caused an impression of unsafeness. To me the deaths in Boeing 737 Max incidents and the revelations about mismanagement are much more reliable indicators of unsafeness.