No, not at you. At the amalgam of posters posting in this and several other related threads throughout FT.

+1. While I probably am of the opinion that this is a bigger financial deal for $BA than most of the finance types on here, I can certainly agree that once they're back in the air it will be a very short time before the flying public totally forgets it.

I sat next to a major carrier pilot on the way to HNL once and when I referenced the gauge of the aircraft in referring to it he laughed at me (already knowing that I was in no way affiliated with the aviation industry). I am sure defending non -8 MAX 737s has been the majority of the increased workload for the customer service at the major carriers that fly them.

The moderator transferred this post from from another thread dealing with whether United should cancel the 737mAX order & go for the A321neo. I was trying to bring home the point that cabin width for the 737 was set on a. 1950s detrrmination, thus being more narrow the the A321. Not a safety issue, but a passenger comfort issue, more related to the original posting thread. Cabin width & seat width are factors in passenger airplane preference. 737 safety. & grounding should only be discussed in the other thread in the context where it would bear on UA's decision to switch to the A321neo & possibly some A220s. Issues such as cabin width should be in the other thread. There are a lot of 737mAX issues, but keeping posts focused to the most relevent thread promotes a more focused discussion.

It's irrelevant to either thread because United and all other airlines don't buy planes based on perceived comfort of economy passengers. Most economy passengers don't know the difference between an A380 and a CRJ900.

Southwest 737 Max Makes Energency Landing in Orlando
 

Appears to be an engine issue. From Orlando to Victorville

I've never said I'd avoid the 737MAX "from now on." I'll avoid it for a good year or two. Might as well let others be the guinea pigs to ensure the fixes will actually take. <shrugs>

Here's the read on that interesting situation...

https://www.tmtindustryinsider.com/2016/08/air-safety-the-deadly-boeing-727/

"The reaction was swift and dramatic. Travel agencies requested the airlines to cancel 727 bookings. Some major corporations ordered their employees to avoid 727 flights. Congressional claims erupted that the design was unsafe, and demands followed that all 727s should be grounded. In response, the Civil Aeronautics Board (the CAB, which was responsible for investigating air accidents and making safety recommendations at that time) undertook a review of the 727’s airworthiness, aerodynamics and flight characteristics. It also requested the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to review the 727 design data. And the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) convened a meeting of 727 operators to review their operating procedures and training.

The result of these reviews was a conclusion that the 727 was airworthy and properly certificated. However, the CAB found that pilots were making unstabilized, high descent rate approaches more often in 727s than in any other jet transport—a practice that was facilitated by the 727’s sophisticated flap system, which allowed excessive sink rates to develop if approaches were not carefully monitored.

"
Similar public reaction although the govt didn't ground while it reviewed. Two of the accidents were UA planes.

Per the FAA, this was unrelated to the recent crashes. (CNBC story here). The pilot reported a performance issue from an engine, rather than anything related to the control systems of the aircraft.

While I have no doubt that some people will tie the two together anyway, at first blush, it looks like nothing but bad luck. An engine failure can happen on any aircraft at any time.

WN MAX 8 on a ferry trip (no passengers), reportedly an unrelated engine issue

To the media there is no difference.

Haven't seen it on TV media at all; only passing references in local media. So obviously there is a difference.

The Sun, hardly a journalistic beacon, but nevertheless a part of the media, put out a bit entitled 'JET EMERGENCY / Boeing 737 Max 8 plane identical to Ethiopian crash jet in emergency landing'.

Out of respect for intelligence, I will not link to it.

Indeed, that one is click-bait-y, but I think it's generally in line with a lot of the recent reporting's failure or inability to give proper context to the issue that caused the two crashes. So for a while, at least, minor incidents are going to be labelled as 'crash-y 737 stuff' even when they're entirely unrelated.