Right, but I'm driving the car and responsible for maintenance. I can mitigate some of the risk, and have insight into the level of risk.
When I get in a plane, I want absolute confidence in the competence of the pilot and crew. I want to know that the plane has been inspected and certified, and the maintenance logged and triple checked.
Finding out that my confidence was misplaced, that the manufacturer has been cutting corners related to safety and structural integrity, that's a deal breaker for me. An auto manufacturer can regain trust with a new model car that fixes previous defects. Airplanes are in service for decades, and you don't always know what plane you'll get until you are at the gate. Airlines will avoid buying new Boeing aircraft, which will drive down the prices, which will encourage further cost-eaving measures at the expense of quality assurance.
The more important difference is that the plane cannot pull over in the event of an engine or steering malfunction. Everything needs to continue working for the aircraft to continue its defiance of gravity.
I don't really feel adequately equipped to realistically assess how big of a deal or risky this really is and how hysterical would really be appropriate for one to be. However, I'm not sure in regards to this specific issue the reassurances about the safety record and statistics for air travel in general are completely relevant. The issues are nebulous problems relating to Boeing specifically where the relative likelihood of a problem and how attributable it is to Boeing or specific models of Boeing planes is unclear. This means you can't simply assume hopping on a Boeing aircraft signals an immediate danger. However, while it has always been the case there's some danger involved in any kind of transportation air travel included, the issue being considered is to what degree is that being increased because of specific things happening with Boeing aircraft, not the overal air travel industry.
For example, if this were a more concrete safety risk, maybe something that can very precisely tell you that a Boeing plane is a guaranteed death sentence, the overall landscape of air travel safety statistics, right now wouldn't look very different unless and until the reason for that increased risk was allowed to persist while flights continue, after which increased incidents would affect that safety record. Like, to take an absurd hypothetical, maybe someone has planted a bomb on every 5th plane manufactured by Boeing that goes off randomly between every 300th to 500th flight that plane takes. If this became known, you'd have a greater chance of getting on a Boeing aircraft that was not affected or which was taking one of the nth flights that wasn't the unlucky number, but you'd still not get on any Boeing planes because this specific problem is outside of the usual factors that had until now driven the otherwise rosy statistics for air travel safety. If someone tried to persuade you to get on one of the planes by saying the trip to the airport by car had been statistically more dangerous than the flight would be, basing their statements on the record of flight safety for air travel generally throughout its history until that point, they'd normally have been right but in that circumstance it'd be madness to get on the flight knowing there was an unusually high chance it had a bomb on board even if the cited statistics before had included previous incidents where deaths had occurred from aircraft that had had bombs on them before this specific scare.
Obviously this is very different as there isn't the same deliberate malice or exactly known likelihood of an incident, that's just a hypothetical extreme for illustration but I guess I'm not sure how reassuring it is to know that before there was specific cause to think travelling by air on a particular manufacturer's aircraft was less safe than previously thought, air travel in general on any plane was considered pretty safe. What if the current issues are set to change those statistics over time?
Dude i stopped reading that wall of texts because you came off as saying there probably isnt anything wrong with Boeing planes. Which, despite what you might have said, is just wrong. They routinely tried and succeed to bypass safely inspections. Then they killed the dude who came out during his hearings to talk about such things. Boeing as a company is shady and un trustworthy. Everyone should be refusing to use their planes.
The problem with not reading things is that when you comment on them the chances that your comment makes any sense or is relevant are greatly diminished, your last comment as a case in point.
Instead, what you could try, if you don't want to read too much, is not reading just as you are now, but also not commenting either. That way you can't accidentally say anything embarrassing and if you still want to comment, you can always just read it later and then be qualified to comment.
Don't worry, folks. The crews of those planes are way more paranoid about anything that could happen than you could possibly imagine. I'd bet the time a standard go-around takes has about tripled for most Boeing flight crews with new-ish jets
If you don't travel in Boeing you have no reason for existence. Your lack of support for Boeing shareholders is appalling. The company shareholder has sent an expert to perform corrective action. The expert is known for his competence due to solving other major problems like John Barnett.
Remember, we all should work for the best the quarterly return and please our masters.
