Life is much easier if you decide the outcome you want before knowing the facts. In this case, if the FAA is on-site, it's because they're corrupt, and if they're not on-site, it's because they're lax.

What a number of replies. Please relax. Just seems that Boeing and FAA got a little too close for (my) comfort.

Sorry if my post was not clear enough. That is exactly my thinking. When the FAA considers Boeing their "customer" and not the flying public who they are supposed to be protecting then that is a huge concern for me as recent events have shown. Yes I believe the foreign aviation authorities are not so closely aligned with Boeing. Hence my viewpoint (and that of others based on the WSJ article).

You do know one of the well known and not so secret tactics during a tax audit is to get close to the tax auditors so they get comfortable with the positions taken on tax returns. The taxpayer understands the nuances of the transaction much better than the IRS and can educate them on the result. There is a reason uncertain tax positions taken by a taxpayer get referred to the Chief Counsel's office for an independent viewpoint, and the IRS decisions do not involve the potential loss of someone's life.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine but Boeing's tactics are a classic approach to ensuring you get the answer you want from a regulatory authority. The foreign regulatory authorities are not sitting in Boeing's offices and happy for the FAA to explain the Boeing position to ensure it passes muster.
⬆️⬆️⬆️ This sums up my attitude as well.

Can't they be both?

The latest estimate for the fleet to be un-grounded is mid-August per the WSJ article published mid-morning. Realistically speaking, there will need to be a period where software updates and mods are applied to the grounded fleet making early September a more likely reality for meaningful service to start back up.

It will likely be an ugly summer for delays and cancellations as the fleet gets stretched thinner and more maintenance is deferred.

I'd say we have facts and we have conjecture. Most of this thread has been conjecture and a few people trying (in vain) to explain the facts to those folks.

But, there's a lot we don't know at this point and conjecture and conspiracy theories thrive in atmospheres where we still don't know a lot and with subject matter that is inherently complex.

The max and ng have published runaway trim procecdures which do not include reengaging the electric trim. I am also pretty certain that coupled with overspend that this is was not in the flight envelope regardless of mcas. The loss of situational awareness I believe was a factor in the crash and if they slowed down could have lead to stablilizing the trim manually as prescribed and prevented the second mcas engagement. But they reengaged the electric trim and didn't slow the plane down. Anyone can look at the flight data and draw their own inferences on speed and pitch control but that is how I understand the events of the flight.

No, that's not a thing.

No, that's not what they faced.

I expect fixing the planes will be very quick, just a software change.

Fixing the pilots with additional training will take a bit longer, particularly at airlines without a strong training culture.

Every crash began with a pilot "willing to fly it." Sometimes, it is important to have your own judgement, rather than just trusting those telling you "everything is okay". But you're right. Many people will just book the cheapest flight. As somebody said upthread: "ignorance is bliss".

and every heart attack begins with someone with a pulse :rolleyes: glad you found the common starting point to all of these crashes!

What perfect world are you expecting to live in? News flash... it doesn't exist.

If there is an area in life in which we strive for more perfect, it's air travel. We've done a tremendous job moving ever closer to this aspirational goal. I am certainly not going to observe two plane crashes of the same model type within five months and say, "Hey, the world's not perfect." @:-)