There are financial incentives if their customers choose competing products because of safety concerns.

I don't even know how I'd do that - even if I tried to book a flight that specifically didn't use a boeing plane in the US domestic airlines will swap out planes for different ones all the time due to maintenance requirements.

Choosing to use a competing product as an end consumer would require an immense sacrifice (like refusing to board your flight if it happened to be a Boeing, which you might get a rebate for?). Only if a significant amount of end consumers protested would the actual plane consumers (the airlines themselves) take notice - or if public opinion shifted to the point where there was a significant externality attached to purchasing a Boeing plane, but that certainly isn't the case now and I'd bet that Boeing has found some way to compensate airlines for the cost of having their planes grounded.

If airlines have to pay more in insurance premiums or they have to pay millions of US dollars a pop for each dead passenger, they'll demand a safer plane.

To my knowledge neither of these conditions have occurred in response to the 737 Max technical issues. Corporations listen to customer complaints that are backed up by losing revenue - as was shown with the issue where a passenger was beaten up on a United flight, people are extremely price sensitive when it comes to flying - there is math that can make the 737 unprofitable, but I think it's unlikely that the math will turn in that direction, it would take an extremely negative PR issue to start this.

I dont think people will all of a sudden start ditching cheap flights just to avoid the max or Boeing. Airline industry is extremely price sensitive from a consumer perspective, and for people to potentially sacrifice hundreds of dollars of savings would be a non sequitur.

For example, if airline A flies MAX and has a ticket for 200 and another airline B has the same route for 400 on A320, most people I know would still fly the MAX because they cant afford to be picky.

I think talking with your wallet works only when the price is relatively inelastic

Here is one data point for you: no matter the price of alternatives, I will not step on a 737. Ever.

If you purchase a plane ticket for a flight that appears to be carried by a bombardier model, would you refuse to board the plane at the gate if the bombardier plane ended up requiring maintenance and they swapped it out for a 737?

How many vacation days would you sacrifice out of your week in Cancun to stand by that belief?

The 737s are the most common airliner in the world, more than 10000 have been built, and more than 1000 are in the air right now. The pre-MAX 737s are just fine (though it had some issues with the rudder in the 90s, and, well, nearly 2% of all 737s built have been lost (184 hull losses) with nearly 5000 fatalities. Goes to show how much they fly.)

You have already, probably multiple times. The 737 model is proven over 50 years of service.

The Max has issues, for sure, and I will be weary of that as well as the upcoming 777X, but I wouldn't hesitate to get on any prior 737 or other Boeing model.

The assumption here is that the risk is equal. Given that prior to the grounding travel Sites were implementing "don't fly with Max" features, the perception is that the rusk is much higher.

Boing executives and their friends and families also fly on their planes.

Or maybe they just fly Learjet.

GP has a point. Flying on Boeing airplanes is something basically everyone does. Even if the executives themselves don't, they have parents, children, aunts, uncles, best men, grand-children, friends, children of friends, lawyers, and government contacts who do.

It's not like they're sitting by the gate sucking the blood of passengers. They're still delivering the safest method of transportation around, not only by distance, but also by time. I know some Boeing employees, they want to deliver great airplanes.

> They're still delivering the safest method of transportation around, not only by distance, but also by time.

It's safe by distance and time because most accidents will occur on take-off or landing. For example, the two recent MAX incidents. It's the nature of flying, not the technology per se, that makes it relatively safe as compared to other modes of transportation. Once you're cruising at altitude the components have already passed maximum load, and you usually have lots of time to remediate issues when they do occur. You get distance & time largely for free rather than as a consequence of engineering.

If you look at risk for just the distance and time spent on take-off and landing, flying is roughly comparable with driving. Of course, the machines are vastly more complex so it's still a testament to the amazing technology and safety standards. But at the same time there's so much more that could be done, not only from an engineering standpoint but especially from a process standpoint.

One might even be able to make the case that Toyota has better quality control and safety engineering processes than Boeing. I mean, many of the most critical components in a plane, such as the engines, aren't even designed or manufactured by Boeing. I think Boeing executives know this and have increasingly tried to offload performance and safety engineering burdens to suppliers, maximizing Boeings profits. Engine manufacturers and other suppliers have begun to take notice, I think. And for areas where Boeing can't offload the burden, they've faltered.

Yes, the statistics per distance look much better for airlines than for cars, but per time it's already less so (planes go faster), and per journey even less so (typical plane ride is much longer than typical car journey).

Last time I looked, planes were 200x as safe per pax mile, but 3x as safe per pax journey.

(EDIT: "Kx safer" -> "Kx as safe", though the uncertainty is so big that it doesn't really matter)

Yep, that's about what I calculated, too, recently. And considering that so many car accidents are caused by drunk drivers, nighttime driving, etc--that is, situations that one can actively avoid--a conscientious drive could likely even the odds or better, at least on a per journey basis. I bet the car accident rate for pilots is significantly below average.

So do Boeing engineers, mechanics, and everyone who works there.

I'm not against them going to jail. However there is another incentive, it's generally bad for business if your product kills people.

> Especially since this isn’t the first time Boeing’s malfeasance killed people.

What are you referring to here?

Might be referring to the rudder problem on the 737 in the 90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

From Wikipedia:

"A total of 157 people aboard the two aircraft were killed."

"The National Transportation Safety Board ultimately determined that the accidents and incidents were the result of a design flaw that could result in an uncommanded movement of the aircraft's rudder."

The MAX line being pushed on to “not requiring specific training”.

That is this time - the time we're discussing. So what's the other time that makes this not the first time?

Yes, sorry, it was late and I misunderstood your question.

> there is literally ZERO incentive for them not to repeat all this

You're assuming they have no stock or stock options in Boeing.