3 ms·

You're both thinking too small. Force the members of the board to constantly fly on the affected models until questions are answered and fixes are delivered.

• tristan957 3y ago
  Planes, even Boeing planes, are the safest form of transportation, at least in the US, if not globally. This punishment makes exactly 0 sense.
  • stephenr 3y ago
    Boeings own staff said they wouldn't fly on the 737-Max. Either they're being hyperbolic and there's zero risk to the board members, or they aren't and thus the board members have a vested interest in making sure the planes become a lot safer a lot quicker. It's a win either way.
  • mrguyorama 3y ago
    People forget the time that Thomas Midgely Jr, you know, the leaded gas guy (which was only superior to ethanol enriched like we do nowadays, which was 100% viable back then, in that it made gas companies more profit) explicitly poured TEL (the leaded additive) all over his hands and smelled its vapors to "prove" it was safe. He literally suffered lead poisoning from this event and working on the product in general. He knew it was harming people and still did the public PR stunt. Execs will 100% do the dangerous thing to make more money even if it puts themselves in immediate danger. Execs rarely have a well developed understanding of risk, and will happily take an 80% risk with the downside being dying. They are gamblers, not rational.
• FredPret 3y ago
  I like this. It's a little bit like the Hammurabi code. It's a very simple way to ensure compliance - assuming that the board member on the plane is competent enough to judge that the plane is good enough to fly on.