3 ms·

> I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision. Well, among other things, an increase in the general public safety vis-à-vis c

• DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  It's not at all obvious that forcing more auto travel and causing chaos in domestic air travel would result in a net benefit in safety (and otherwise) for the general public. I imagine its pretty nuanced. Only reason I see for it is a punitive incentive for Boeing. Anything else requires more of an argument, in my perspective.
  • deciplex 3y ago
    It's pretty obvious to me that not allowing dangerous aircraft in the sky benefits the public safety. I can only guess at what your objections are, because you're being awfully vague, but since I have to guess I guess that you're saying something along the lines of "people will use other forms of transport like driving which is more dangerous than even flying on a 737 MAX." I find this line of reasoning flawed because while you may be on to something in the very short term, in the long term grounding the fleet permanently will increase the incentive for Boeing et al to produce safer aircraft. Thus, grounding the fleet will save lives. So, we should do it. As to whether this "punishes" Boeing I have to confess that I absolutely, positively, do not give a shit if this counts as "punishment" and quite frankly the entire C-level of the company and any board members / stockholders that had a hand in degrading their QC to this degree, should be held criminally liable and punished as such. So that's where I stand on punitive incentives: they're a good thing.