Originally Posted by
J.Edward
In aviation things must work right EVERY time, ALL the time or else people die.
That is both an impossible standard and factually untrue. Many, many systems fail every day on commercial aircraft. It's extremely rare for anyone to die.
Originally Posted by
J.Edward
Based on the little I know about this incident Boeing appears to have pushed a cheaper redesign of a fifty-plus year old design beyond its limits vs a more expensive clean-sheet 737 replacement. Boeing gambled and the traveling public paid the price, in blood, for Boeing's wager.
You admit that you know "little" about this incident, and then go on to make some pretty heated statements anyway.
Did the laws of physics change in the last 50 years? In any other context, 50 years of safe operating experience would be a positive, not a negative. And the focus on the cost is somewhat misplaced. Customers insisted upon a 737 replacement that could interoperate with their existing fleets. Boeing looked at a clean-sheet design and found that it wasn't financially viable because customers didn't want it. If you want to blame anybody for being cheap, blame the largest operators of the 737.
Originally Posted by
J.Edward
My (perhaps irrational) worry is while the MCAS system maybe "fixed", how many other systems did Boeing incorporate and the regulators sign off on - hence I find myself asking the question "How do I know the plane is now safe?"
You, yourself, admit that you're being irrational. The MAX will be the most-scrutinized aircraft in history. If you're dedicated to this "Boeing being motivated by greed" theory, keep in mind that a third incident would scuttle not just the MAX but likely the company.
Originally Posted by
J.Edward
Take the word of the same company who said it was safe when it first flew?
Trust the regulators who signed off on the initial round of "fixes" after the first crash?
The same regulators who... signed off on whatever other plane you'd fly? The same regulators who signed off on the fixes to the Airbus 320 after its initial demonstration flight plunged into the trees at an airshow? (In an incident in which the plane really did fly itself into the ground).
And there wasn't really a first round of fixes -- just a reiteration of the original procedure of what to do if you find yourself in a runaway stabilizer situation. Preliminary indications are that the ET pilots deviated from that procedure.
Originally Posted by
J.Edward
As such, and a personal decision - and this will obviously differ from person to person - I will not book a MAX nor will I board a MAX if equipment is swapped in, I will request UA/AA/etc. switch me to another flight.
I feel that UA is taking the absolutely wrong approach by allowing customers to change. They're validating these fears. If it's not safe enough that everybody should feel comfortable to fly on it, why would UA operate it? And if it is safe to fly, why would they allow people to change off of it?