They’ve made it clear they have their own auditors stepping in to assess Boeing’s processes, which doesn’t signal “lost”, and most of the public would see that comment about the FAA as a good thing I’d think.
The responsibility here is clearly still on Boeing. But when it comes to public communication, no one trusts Boeing right now, so it makes sense to highlight the involvement of a governing body that is not Boeing.
I realize there are major issues with the FAA/Boeing dynamic right now, but if the Alaska Airlines CEO instead said “We’re following Boeing’s lead in this matter”, I don’t think that would be an improvement.
After the autopilot crashes, the FAA grounded the 737 until they all had safety upgrades. Boing threw a pile of money at congress, and the FAA was overruled.
This is textbook regulatory capture. They will bribe their way out of this like last time. Boing is /too big to fail/, which is the penultimate pathology before /too big to keep alive/.
>> We are taking action on a comprehensive plan to bring these airplanes safely back to service and to improve our quality and delivery performance. We will follow the lead of the FAA and support our customers every step of the way.”
I though "follow the lead of the FAA" because you are lost when it come to such things. Not the image I want in my head of a company that should be a leader in that area...