3 ms·
Not to mention that it was a fraud to begin with, trying to skirt pilot-training rules by having (monumentally incompetent) software tweak the controls of a per
by ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
Not to mention that it was a fraud to begin with, trying to skirt pilot-training rules by having (monumentally incompetent) software tweak the controls of a perverted airframe design to make it imitate previous 737s.
If they had done what they needed to do and designed a new plane from scratch, those people wouldn't be dead.
OR if they'd simply acknowledged the changed characteristics of the plane, struck deals with purchasers to subsidize training expenses, and let pilots fly it themselves... those people wouldn't be dead.
Boeing's recent behavior, as reported by this article, warrants further disgust and ought to be featured in the mainstream news.
- hn_go_brrrrr 3y agoIf they had designed a new plane from scratch, those people wouldn't have died because the new airframe wouldn't have been flying yet. Check back again in 2030.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoStill a win.
- calamari4065 3y agoTell me, what is the exact number of dead children you're willing to accept in order to get new planes flying?
- hn_go_brrrrr 3y agoJust like the optimal amount of fraud is nonzero (https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...), the optimal number of dead children is too. A child doesn't have a meaningfully greater chance of dying on an airplane than an adult, so what this question is really asking (while crudely attempting to tug on the heartstrings) is whether we're willing to tolerate people dying in order to keep planes flying. The answer is obviously yes. We don't cancel all flights globally when a plane crashes and everyone dies, because we suddenly can't tolerate the risk anymore.