or money to make them?

Also 747 crashes from design flaws - but people are still enamored with the "Queen of the sky"

I’ll definitely fly on it again. I’m more concerned actually with like...comfort. I expect it will be safe eventually. I’ve heard bad things about the bathroom size.

I'm pretty sure there are still places to park 'em :D .... STL airport has around 30 unused gates in the C concourse, and I am sure there is real estate at ROW airport to house a few of them. And who knows, if these planes never fly again and they are stored at ROW, they don't even have to be moved. haha!!!! :p

Crashes plural? The only 747 crash due to a design flaw I'm aware of is TWA 800.

The main difference here, as has been pointed out many times, is that this is an instance of a very new plane model crashing twice in a very short period of time due to the same design flaw. You have to go back to the de Havilland Comet to see a similar pattern.

Plenty of space around Concourse D at CLE. ;)

LH 540 - stalled and crashed in part due to an insufficient warning system
ULF 48 - structural failure left wing
JAL 123 - sudden decompression due to faulty bulkhead ripping off a portion of the tail and loss of all hydraulic controls
UAL 811 - cargo door burst open due to short circuit; the pilots managed to return to the airport, but 9 passengers died
CAL 358 - metal fatigue resulting in the number 3 engine detaching and striking the number 4 engine, breaking it off the wing
ELY 1862 - metal fatigue resulting in the number engine 3 breaking off, knocking off the number 4 engine which in turn ripped off slats; it crashed into apartment blocks
CAL 611 - tail broke off in flight due to metal fatigue causing the plane to disintegrate mid-air
KAL 8509 - crashed due to erroneous altitude indicator

The main difference is that the airline flying public these days tolerates less risk because we don't have periodic plane crashes the way we did in the 1970's and 1980's. We used to have a couple every year, including American carriers. Now they are very rare, and I believe the last one involving a major carrier was either the Colgan Air crash (if you count it) a decade and a half ago, or the American Airlines crash in Queens back in late 2001.

In 2019, airliners are expected to be completely safe. And I think that's a reasonable expectation. It's obviously possible to design these things in ways that won't kill anyone- even new designs like the Airbus neo. So the MAX is unacceptable.

No, the only way to be completely safe from air accidents is to never leave your house... and hope a plane doesn't land on it.

As pointed out many times in this thread. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the physical design of the max. This is a software, training and redundancy issue; all of which can be fixed.

Lots of caveats on your list. Design flaws? All pax died? Any pax carried? Not to mention, this is a list comprising decades of flight, not 10 months. It's simply not a valid comparison. And you could make such a list for virtually any passenger jet model.

That's all good, but I'm not going to fly on MAX for at least another year, and my junior staff have told me they will stay home instead of flying MAX. I'm not going to fight them over this. I'll either pay higher fares for them to fly non-MAX, or we can do video meetings.

Those were due to design flaws just as much as in your example of TWA 800.

Except for the UAL flight, all aboard died. Two or three of the flights which I listed were cargo - same engine pilon and wing design - and one was a military flight with passengers; are crew members lives not as precious as those of passengers.

Of course, it's just common sense, in my view. I'm not paranoid, but I wouldn't even be amongst the first to get on a new roller coaster, let alone an Airplane that fell from the sky shortly after takeoff in a similar fashion twice within a span of several months. I mean, what are the odds on that?

We're talking about narrow body airplanes that get you from ORD to BOS or me from SHA to NNG. Only one plane that plies these routes has performed dives into the earth at low altitude. I will avoid this plane until I'm 100% positive that the bugs are fixed.