http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...rsightxml.html

...Somewhere between an airworthiness directive and not issuing anything at all. Is anyone else amused by the use of the word "development"? Boy, if there was ever a case of cleverly giving the benefit of the doubt. 122 planes in service -- and it's still in development? We are indeed the beta.

Calibrating the FAA, I suggest that this was meant to leave a mark, as much as the FAA does/can nowadays, but is sugarcoated in more layers than a large jawbreaker. Nonetheless, stripped of all those layers, it says you can't run Boeing like the fictitious "ValuJet".

The facts are the facts.

Also puts one in mind of the old saying, "The Pope was in perfect health, and then he was dead."