Can the BBC reign in its news headline writers and reverse a fairly recent (5-10 years?) policy of juicing up what was 'unbiased' news? But in fact, I have a rose-tinted view of the BBC so I should just reign in my reactions instead.
Update: Apparently "crash" is misleading here since the plane was never airborne, it aborted takeoff but veered off the runway and likely hit something since the wing caught fire.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-68886071.amp
I agree this story is a red herring. By and large 737s preceding the MAX variants had a rather amazing reputation, which is part of the reason 737s are so ubiquitous.
The issues today are that the MAX planes are enough different than the previous planes, that they should have likely been sold as a different product with different training. And the second issue is the erosion of Boeing's formerly engineer-led culture through various business / regulatory shenanigans such as outsourcing and self-oversight.
Leaving it to look like the HN submitter was the one generating a clickbait headline. Title should probably be changed here if dang is listening.
Also, they finished the article with a paragraph about current issue despite the fact that there are no evidence whatsoever that link this incident of a 30 year old airframe with Boeing. They could have waited until the incident investigation concludes to make that connection.
"skids off runway" or "failed takeoff" would have less implication of death.
Agree with reigning in your expectations!