I didn't downvote you but it's easy to blame money/greed than the overt encouragememt and endorsement of Boeing's domestic monopoly by a litany of power players

I didn't downvote you but it's easy to blame money/greed than the overt encouragememt and endorsement of Boeing's domestic monopoly by a litany of power players both in gov and most importantly, private players directly feeding into gov / other major corporate decision making. Boeing gets to do what it wants (like bypassing approval processes) because it's the only player in town. Even after the worst possible QC embarassement, and a massive financial loss few other companies could eat, they still have lots of orders for MAX because of that near monopoly. Largely supported by their OTHET convienient near monopoly in a few markets the US gov also actively encourages, to an even worse degree. Airbus might be good competition in a narrow sense but only because having one is worse than just two. There should have been market players getting a bunch of capital to compete with them long ago but I guess there are market and regulatory barriers that have made that untenable. The failures, blatant regulatory capture, and complete lack of real alternatives can be hand waved by reducing it to "money" (to a few) but if anything theres a lot more money to be made if the US had a wide selection of better planes, that aren't grounded for 2yrs, with greater global market demand and old planes getting replaced sooner by much faster by more powerful and enfficent ones. We as a society (EU too) give space, national defence, and aeronautics basically an unchecked green light for this type of behaviour constantly for so thin rationale about domestic security needs and "but it's complicated and expensive", as if America and the west can't do better.