It makes no difference to the average consumer. They see 'Boeing' having an accident, they immediately think, "another problem? this airline sucks!".

But it cuts much deeper than that because the problem with Max involved the lives of hundreds of people. Whichever way you look, this adds an enormous dose of fuel to an ongoing fire.

> They see 'Boeing' having an accident, they immediately think, "another problem? this airline sucks!".

Was going to object that Boeing is an airplane manufacturer, but now I'm not sure if that was intentional.

Make the ticket cost $10 less than a non Boeing plane and no one will care.

Not denying that issue with the 737 Max was probably negligent.

However, as you say average people don't care, but then why are headlines putting Boeing 737 in it. It's just going to add to confusion.

I am an aeroplane geek, and would be comfortable flying Boeing. But I don't think the average consumer can be blamed for thinking differently. The general brand news is the only real information they have to go on. At the very least it is a useful heuristic in the absence of actual understanding. And we can't really expect people to understand thoroughly every product and service they use.

Big companies put a lot of effort into branding, and it can have positive effects for them. The flip side is that people will see bad news with a similar lack of nuance.

It was pilot error to try landing with a tailwind in torrential rain.