Hacker News Reader

Comment by armitron | Hacker News Reader

I'll never fly 737 Max. No matter what changes they do, barring a complete redesign of the plane.

Boeing deserves to go out of business for this.

And I'll say that I'll happily fly the 737 Max with a first-rate airline, and avoid flying any plane on an airline with a worse safety record than Aeroflot. Both Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines have similar safety records to this century's Aeroflot, whether by incidents/hour, incidents/rotation or incidents/plane. No comparison to the American/Delta/United/BA/KLM/Air France/Lufthansa/etc of the world. (Seriously, if you've had more 'incidents resulting in fatalities' this century than Aeroflot while flying half as many planes... Let's just say that Ethiopian does not meet my standards for a safe airline. And that's only counting 2000-2018)

Similarly, I'd like any plane I'm flying in to have a fully qualified pilot AND copilot, and I don't consider 200 hours of total flight experience to be 'fully qualified'.

I'm not going to defend Boeing's conduct here for one moment, but I do think your statement is an over-reaction. The company employs 150,000 people, it contributes billions to the US economy, and builds significant aerospace know-how in the US. I imagine we could come up with lots of reasons why Boeing is a net positive. These crashes are tragic and Boeing's conduct deserves condemnation, but a solution that keeps the company going and fixes the culture that led to this seems to be a far better solution than them going out of business entirely.

If I pack air, sell it as panacea, and employ 150k people doing that, do I deserve to be be in business?

If you can actually pay 150k people, maybe you do, since you're bloody good at it!

Joke aside, let's be fair, Boeing did not sell air. Their greed got the better of them, and the institutions set to prevent that did not do their job. They should take responsibility for the things they did (or in this case, did not). There is no penalty high enough to bring back lives.

I wish there was a law to nationalize a company that was found guilty of gross negligence, to subsequently pay damages and re-sell them in the market. Make shareholders accountable, instead of sending a couple of middle managers to jail and keeping the same incentives that caused the first tragedy in place.

> instead of sending a couple of middle managers to jail

So you want to turn the company over to the same governmental body that lets companies get off by firing a few middle managers? The same body that possibly allowed this lapse in safety to get through regulations in the first place?

Temporarily, yes. It doesn't have to be the same government agency, and the aim would be to divest as fast as possible, so hopefully less short-sighted and more responsible shareholders would control it in the end.

Has the Overton window shifted so much that the idea of a somehow successful company that produces 0 positive value by selling a completely fake product is legitimately humorous or an appropriate subject for levity?

Perhaps my sense of humor is broken but I find the fact that jest was even made quite alarming. I'm used to playing word games, and taking refuge in audacity...but damn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com