The failure at Boeing wasn't just some individual s/w issue. It was an organisational problem that caused them to make decisions to expedite release out of a plane that wasn't safe. The question isn't have they fixed the issue or not. The question is have they made the organisational changes to ensure that their complex hierarchy of management can't overrule technical experts about whether safe procedures have been followed. In my opinion, given the timescales and what people are reporting, the same people who pushed to get the 737Max out the door in an unsafe manner in the first place in order to meet over-ambitious targets, will probably have also been motivated to push through sign-off on these changes too.

The question is less about whether Boeing can afford another crash, it's more about whether all the individuals in the hierarchy can afford to tell their boss the 737Max isn't ready- or as is likely, that it cannot ever be made safe in an economical way.

I'm 100% certain Boeing would be able to survive as an organization. Boeing is an extremely large defense contractor and for that reason alone too big to fail.

>do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes?

The US government will not let Boeing die, even if it should.

> Given the scrutiny on this plane, do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes? I'm surprised they're willing to risk it.

Did you think that after the first one crashed?

If a third one crashes, will your logic become even stronger in the aftermath of that?

The source of this claim is entitled to an opinion but it does seem in the minority.

In a pay-to-play industry, where Boeing make things other than commercial aircraft, and knowing that American administration, regardless of political persuation, will keep it alive? Sure.