The problem for me is not with the error that happened but by the response of the CEO for the accident. People who fly on new planes can't be bullsh*tted that easily, as they read news all the time. The Boeing CEO has no idea how much he is in the center of attention for his clients right now.

> The Boeing CEO has no idea how much he is in the center of attention for his clients right now.

Do you really think this?

I think he underestimates how well informed people are, or maybe I'm overestimating. It's good that he said that Boing takes responsibility, but instead of saying that he's confident in 737 MAX he should have said that he's making sure that the fix is well tested. Also he could have gone into the details of the verification plan to calm the technical crowd.

Anyways, we'll see how the stock price looks in a year, I sincerely have no idea, but I think airlines outside US will try to prefer Airbus for new contracts in the next year.

you just rename it I guess.

Like, Fly-by-wire is not new, airbus has been flying this way for 30 years, and had some bad early accidents because of it. The name of the system doesnt matter very much, so I fail to understand how the name would ground the airplane forever

That’s not what I meant. I mean a background system pushing the nose down without any active control input from the pilot while autopilot is off.

Versus Airbus which moderates pilot input to keep within the flight envelope, but I don’t think it steers without inputs when autopilot is off?

MCAS was designed to only activate in extreme flight conditions (e.g. AoA being abnormally high). The reason why they decided have MCAS activate even without autopilot can probably be traced to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447.

The Airbus system certainly does override pilot commands. It doesn't matter if the autopilot is disengaged. There are situations even outside of normal law where the system will prevent the pilot from entering a stall.

That would be an astronomical loss, I just don't see that happening.

In the end, not the FAA but the consumer may decide this. Honestly, I will avoid this plane for at least 1, possible 2 years.

I think $3B in R&D, half of that is the engines, but more importantly, time to market trying to compete with Airbus.

They can reuse the engines. If the airframe can’t fly safely without MCAS (it’s getting a new type rating anyway at this point, right?) then I think perhaps it shouldn’t fly.

Yea somehow I don't think that's how they are crunching the numbers. Stock price is probably sitting on the assumption that those 5000 orders at cool 128M are going to go through. That would be considered 600B loss.

That's two billion roughly per life lost. Seems like a small price to pay. The CEO should be going to jail too. I highly doubt any of this will happen. Human lives are probably worth a million or two at most to a corporation like Boeing and the political apparatus that lets it operate these planes.