I don't care how certified these planes are down the track, I never want to set foot on a 737 Max and generally any new Boeing that doesn't have a solid air history. Trust with these guys is totally blown.
Boeing are in the news anyway, which in turn makes other Boeing problems more likely to make the news, both in the number of blogs written, and the likelihood they get shared here.
Or alternatively, it really needs a report that demonstrates that eg Airbus have no similar foreign object problems for one's understanding to be more informed.
A Boeing-only story by itself is an incomplete picture.
If there’s a systemic problem that involves issues manufacturing a plane, it’s highly unlikely that it only involves one single type of plane.
You're saying that the best way for a company to get your business is to make a deathtrap and after it kills a bunch of people they'll fix a few of the glaring problems versus just making a good plane in the first place.
If there’s a systemic problem that involves issues manufacturing a plane, it’s highly unlikely that it only involves one single type of plane.
There isn't though. Evidence for that is Boeing itself - for decades they made excellent planes that had very few problems. The 747 was the safest and most popular plane in the world for years. Boeing have made more than 1000 of them and there have been very few crashes, and most of those have been pilot error or external factors.
Something at Boeing has changed, and that has made some of their newer planes less safe. That tells you nothing about other manufacturers.
MD merger.
This is a good article with some background on why people think that may be the case:
https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg...
Re: other manufacturers, if the regulatory environment is one in which Boeing can get by with cutting corners, that means it’s an environment in which other manufacturers can cut corners as well. That, combined with the inherent characteristic of for-profit companies doing what they do, I have no reason to believe that Airbus et al are not doing the same. Hell, the first A320 was infamous for a software issue causing it to crash, too, complete with regulators and Airbus involved in controversy afterwards for trying to alter the results of the investigation.
Many airlines will not accept the 787 built on the east coast until they are flown to Seattle to be inspected there first.
Thats only a 90% guarantee, since plane types are reshuffled during disruption sometimes.
Time without incidents will be needed to earn many of our trusts back.
You talk of the regulation but posts on HN have shown how the regulators have failed and even why it's happened.
Who is more likely to have quality control issues? The company that has had more planes crash or the company that has had fewer planes crash?
Meanwhile companies like IaG are buying more 737-Max, knowing full well their customers will base their purchase on the cheapest hit on skyscanner.
I might have been lenient if it was one issue but it issue after issue and it's not just design of the plane, it seems the whole company is rotten to the core.
I also noticed that the last several issues reported were all reported by Boeing and not by the FAA. I like that as well.
These planes are vetted so closely and strictly that will probably make them the safest plane in existence.
How many Airbus have messed up wiring or have debris in the fuel tank? None? Do you know why? Because nobody is looking at them with a magnifying glass.