Why is that the consumer’s problem? It’s literally playing with people’s lives just because a company is bad at what they do.

Not at all excusing what’s happened, but if Boeing and Airbus disappear, who’ll create the new jumbo jets? You can’t just kill a company like that. You can fine the living daylights out of them, sure, but don’t kill them.

Bombardier, Embraer, Ilyushin, Mitsubishi, Tupolev, BAE - have flown on all these and really liked Bombardier and Embraer, very quiet, generally pleasant, for a short haul I'd opt for these rather than a 737 or A320.

An expectation of a product creates a product. And a product (can) create(s) demand with or without that expectation.

Of course that won't happen as aerospace is such a strategic industry.

FWIW, note that Bombardier is out of the commercial aviation market now; their only doing business jets now. BAe, now BAE Systems, is very much a defence company; the commercial side effectively went to Airbus with BAe's stake in it.

Multiple aviation projects have almost bankrupt Bombardier in recent history, so I don't really see them getting back into it. And it's hard to see what BAE Systems would get out of entering the commercial aviation market.

... Ilyushin ... Tupolev

Um let's be serious. Hard no on those.

Regarding Boeing, it’s my opinion that you don’t kill off the whole company but rather kill off all the regulation loopholes that allowed this 737 Max mess to begin with. If Boeing can’t get their plane fixed and certified, properly, then big deal. That’s their problem. If they fail because they can’t sell their “new” broken plane, they killed themselves off.

The even bigger problem is that our governments allow companies to get to these “too big to fail” states, and I myself am pretty tired of it. Every single time it is the consumer that pays, either literally or with their lives.

Something definitely needs to be done about it, but “too big to fail” is a very real thing. Regulation fixes, corporate culture fixes, something, but killing the companies that are “too big to fail” isn’t a good idea in most cases.

I’m not really sure what you’re addressing. Preventing too big to fail doesn’t mean preemptively killing off companies.

I’m saying that, just like monopolies, there’s nothing inherently bad about being “too big to fail.” But when they do stuff wrong, we still punish them, but we don’t kill them. Break them up? Possibly.

If they are too big to fail that already is implying monopoly and unfair situation for their competitors.

It can't be good for innovation or the consumer if a giant established player is getting preferential treatment.

Is Boeing bleeding on 787 because of how groundbreaking the new plane is and all the baby problems that follow? Or because of mismanagement?