> That honor system didn't seem to work very well on Boeing.

This logic is how everything gets ruined.

You have a system which has caused air travel to have two orders of magnitude fewer fatalities than ground travel despite operating at much higher speeds, but the system doesn't prevent 100.0% of the evil.

Then the instance it didn't prevent is used to justify tightening the screws, even if that makes things less rather than more safe for the reasons discussed.

Because people have recency bias, and using this as an anchor, argue their point of view (aka, their political beliefs), rather than argue for the truth.

I wouldn’t advocate getting rid of the honour system; it has proven to work for operating aircrafts.

But like [1], I am still utterly confused about the whole self-certification deal.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28399487

I feel honor system works pretty well.

The point of honor system isn't to put swift immediate justice on every infraction. It is to eliminate dishonest players from the long game.

If you are dishonest it usually is your modus operandi. You are not dishonest just once. When you get away with something once it becomes easier the next time.

But, as we say in Poland, lies have short legs. If you lie long enough you are bound to be caught one way or another.

The honor system means that once you get caught the punishment will be disproportionately painful, to make it impractical to be dishonest in the long run and to deter others from doing the same.

You're not wrong, though it's worth noting there are two different things going on there. In terms of operations (flying aircraft) the honor system makes sense. You want everyone learning from each others mistakes so you need to encourage a culture of voluntary transparency. That means you are actively trading leniency in exchange for transparency to keep everyone talking. On the other side, engineering, there are very well defined frameworks for how you design, fabricate, test, and certify airframes. There's an argument to be made for working to minimize the pointless red tape (and oh boy is there a lot of pointless red tap) but self certification in the ream of purely capitalistic corporations isn't the right play. Individuals can be convinced to care about reputation but corporations are so profit driven and carefully structured to avoid liability that it's largely pointless to attempt to map individual morality onto them.

Corporations aren't that carefully structured to avoid liability. The standard corporate charter in the united states limits it by default.

I took this to mean that the board will never explicitly tell you to break the law. They'll just make it impossible to carry out your job unless you do. Then, when the hammer falls you're a "rogue employee" that the company couldn't possibly have foreseen.

This. Corporations are cya machines. Also liability may not be prevented but meaningful punishment always seems to be avoided.

They are in terms of compartmentalization of orders, and "sentiment" that drives top-down issues, e.g. Wells Fargo account creation fraud.

Boeing lost their honor.

Now they're going to lose their status.