When you crash your car ordinarily it doesn't kill 150 people at a time.

No, but it can certainly kill me, my passengers, and whomever may be in another vehicle.

I get to choose a number of comfort and safety features I want in my automobile, though I know it will come with certain safety features standard. My automobile is cheaper and if there’s an accident there are fewer lives at risk. I’d hope commercial aircraft manufacturers would choose a higher level of duty of care.

Personally, I feel this has been a parsimonious approach that can easily be (and has been, from all indications) deleterious to passenger safety, but in this case both the manufacturer and airlines that declined to pay for those “extras” are at fault. (I’ve got to give AA a shout out for putting lives over pennies.) The price to pay is much too high, since we’re talking about passenger and crew lives. I believe my perspective is supported by the fact Boeing is now including significant MCAS, manuals, training updates and the safety “options” in the new MAXs awaiting delivery and retrofitted to existing aircraft.

I think it’s a short term mind set that chooses to make safety features many would assess as critical in a commercial airliner capable of transporting 200 people optional to keep the unit or fleet price point down to appear more competitive, as well as support the idea that this was “just another 737” requiring minimal transition training for crew. Unconscious bias? Reflective of a corporate culture that may be more sales driven and less obsessed with safety and quality? Reflective of what some perceive as a widespread tendency to stress shorter term profits, quarterly reports and enhancing sales by unbundling? I don’t know, but perhaps it’s a combination of these.

I hope this has been a wake up call to the industry and Boeing, and that the Board and management will reassess the direction implied by the MAX affair and allegations being made about quality control in the Boeing South Carolina plant. If not, I could see a diminishing future for Boeing (which has more current and nascent competitors) and a sector of the economy that’s vital to the US economy.

I don't pretend to know all the details, but I am less optimistic about AA's motivations here. It appears that what drove the development of the 737 MAX in the first place (as opposed to a complete redesign) was AA basically strong-arming Boeing—and that apparently was a purely motivated by money. Who's to say AA actually decided to spend money on these additional "add-ons" (as opposed to getting them for free)? I'm not saying that AA doesn't value lives over pennies, but I am unconvinced that AA puts lives over pennies more so than other airlines, just because their 737 MAXs have additional add-on features.

So, at most about half a dozen people. Your car is a private vehicle fitted with features which you choose. It is not a commercial vehicle owned by a multi billion dollar company used for mass transportation on a global scale.

How many safety features are there on buses (are there even seat belts)? When are we going to have positive train control on all passengers trains in this country? How many people who say they will never set foot on a max, don't spend for extra safety features on their automobile, which would be much more likely to affect their safety? The fact is, we sacrifice safety due to money all the time in the transportation sector.

Well, the next time you see a bus crash and kill a few hundred people you'll probably see an advance in required safety features. Aviation is an entirely different animal, using a highly complex piece of machinery operating in a highly dynamic three dimensional environment, where if even a small issue arises, it can be catastrophic. I'll take my chances on a bus without seatbelts long before I'll step on a plane which has the potential to fly itself into the ground.

Um, yes. 3-point seat belts on the Greyhound fleet, for instance. And those might actually save a life because an accident might be at 60 mph instead of 600 mph. @:-)
Why would we mandate that we have positive train control on all passenger trains before we add safety to airliners? And when was the last train crash in the US that killed 150 people? (Answer: Never.)

It's always risk/reward. Automobile travel is higher risk with great reward and a much greater chance of coming through an accident alive.

Airliner travel is extremely safe - except in the "win the reverse lottery" instance where it's not. Then you have virtually zero chance of coming through the accident alive.

No matter what you do to a car, it will always be less safe than a plane. That's not really the point.

I have to say that Boeing has done some masterful PR here. They have shifted the discussion to the MCAS. The MCAS is not the problem. It's an attempt to fix the problem. The problem is that the engines are too big and in the wrong place, making the plane inherently unstable. This can't be fixed with software because its not a software problem, and no one is discussing the real problem.

This plane will never be safe, and I won't fly in it.

You say odd, they say criminal... potatoes, potatos…

The problem is that Boeing sold critical (as it turns out) safety features as optional add ons, that actually cost very little, just to make some more money. So this looks like a mix of ignorance/miscalculation/negligence and greed. Which should amount to significant criminal and civil liability.

I mean, I guess with this logic (or lack thereof) why spend any money on safety features at all? Strip out the life vests, oxygen masks, slides, etc. That'll save a ton of money...

I get they cannot include every feature standard but It does seem since Suicide Mode (MCAS) was standard, the safety features related to that non-optional "feature", should also be standard.