It's rather weird to ask a huge number of mostly-good airplanes to be thrown away for PR reasons, rather than fixing them.
(Not to mention that these planes have never crashed in most countries, even with an admittedly serious bug.)
(Not to mention that these planes have never crashed in most countries, even with an admittedly serious bug.)
In... Most countries? That's such a weird standard to hold an aircraft to. Even very serious aircraft issues before typically only resulted in crashes in a handful of countries!
Did I read that wrong or do you want 100+ of the 200ish countries in the world to have experienced a 737 MAX crash before scrapping the MAX?
Actually, I think if the planes can be fixed (and I'd be shocked if they couldn't), the two crashes before the fix will no longer be relevant for assessing safety.
If it were fixed tomorrow at that point we could discuss how it effects risk in the future.
As it should be. That's how important safety is. Boeing brought this on themselves by letting a second airplane crash before responding properly.
You are calling me out over nothing. This is uncharitable, to say the least. Why make trouble?
Talking about countries is just another way of saying that the plane was flying in many places all over the world and the risk of accident, despite these horrible accidents, was never very high. As you say, would never happen.
your parenthetical still shows some finger pointing towards “poor” countries’ pilots and ignores the number of crashes and reports for as young as this plane is and the numbers in use.
Aviation adapts to problems and it always has. Southwest installed additional gear on their planes to help prevent this when the first plane crashed. It’s not far fetched that companies in countries with lesser regulations might skip out on training or plane enhancements that would lessen the chances of this problem.
Clearly, that didn't happen, or a second MAX wouldn't have crashed under very similar circumstances.
> Southwest installed additional gear on their planes to help prevent this when the first plane crashed.
Southwest ordered the MAX with an AoA indicator; it wasn't retrofitted.
> ... to help prevent this ...
It's questionable whether the AoA indicator would've made a difference. However, an AoA disagree alert that is standard in the previous 737 gen was "accidentally" made part of the AoA indicator extra feature set on the MAX, and the AoA disagree just _might_ have made a difference. [1]
> It’s not far fetched that companies in countries with lesser regulations might skip out on training or plane enhancements that would lessen the chances of this problem.
An AoA indicator is not mandatory anywhere in the world.
[1] https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/05/06/boeing-angle-of-att...
If you make controls more complicated, pilots will make more mistakes in critical situation.
You have a strange idea about how to assess risk. It's like faults are somehow contagious.
There’s no question that Boeing’s implementation had major issues, but there is IMO a higher burden of argument(?) to declare that a fundamental inevitability.
This could simply be a case of Boeing incompetent/reckless/...
They are. If 737 MAX was rushed to market and this is the first issue we become aware of, how many more are hidden?
If Boeing makes a habit of rushing planes to market without certification, how many more ticking time-bombs are flying around?
Welcome to the internet where other people's money doesn't matter.