I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well.
Actual question: would an airline have the engineering competence to second-guess an airplane manufacturer's engineering guidance? They operate airplanes but don't build them, and I'd assume they'd out of necessity need to trust the manufacturer's judgement.
Airlines have every reason to be skeptical of their supplier even if they do not have the engineering competence to second guess them. They could for instance look through their past communications with the manufacturer and see for themselves which advisories they agree with because for instance they are obviously not safety critical, this would then allow them hire specialists to evaluate the remainder for a second opinion.
For almost any act, we rely on other people. That doesn't absolve us of our personal responsibility.
But I'm just some guy with no incentive to endanger human life if I think it will save money so what do I know
Frankly I put it squarely on Boeing.
No, UPS bought the plane from Thai Airways International.
> Boeing built them
No, McDonnell Douglas built the plane in question; Boeing hadn't merged with MD at the time this aircraft was manufactured.
The other elements are probably true, but this was not a Boeing aircraft.
Why did you need to tell me about the wire then?
The answer is an attempt to transfer the liability to me. The liability for a thing they think could happen, but didn't tell me about.
And the worst thing is I don't think even after mcas things have substantially improved there. I've seen more spin and damage control than actual safety focus. They could have launched a huge company program and management reorganization to really turn this mindset around.
I think the biggest issue that Boeing is too big to fail. They'll never fall because the government needs them for all their warplanes.