I am in no way anti capitalism. It's the best economic system to date, it's just that it isn't inffallible. i.e.: Market forces are very slow....certainly not responsive enough to prevent people from dying in accidents.

Meanwhile, I will just leaves these here (sort of John Grisham-esque? ;-) )

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703

https://www.newsweek.com/john-barnett-boeing-whistleblower-predicted-death-scandal-1879548

To be fair, that's exactly what someone who is planning to off himself would say.

Boeing is effectively a protected arm of the federal government, not a free market actor. The government will not let them fail.

Boeing certainly has two or three senators and a passle of congressmen in their corner, however their commercial space division, commercial aircraft division, and military business are all taking some serious kicks in the teeth despite political advantage. Politicians will always take corporate money, but they only back corporate winners in the long run.

Boeing’s lawyers need to up their game. All these media hit pieces from all corners of the media this last 10 days or so; "Boeing jet incident, Scary Skies", etc., when in reality United is letting Boeing take all the heat of their current Maintenance woes.

What is so special (or lacking) with United’s maintenance?

United plane off the runway: Boeing's fault.
United 777 $h!ts a hydraulic system: Boeing's fault.
United plane loses wheel: Boeing's fault.
United 737 sheds a panel in flight: Boeing's fault.

Not saying UAL's maintenance is uniformly shoddy, but odds are at least one or two of the incidents above are on United and not Boeing.

That said, Boeing made this bed. Nobody there should be surprised that the media is taking every opportunity to drag them through the mud. Boeing's current reputation is 100% Boeing's fault.

United isn't"letting" anything. With mainstream media highlighting every quality assurance deficit the FAA is finding at Boeing, the media is piling on Boeing. Journalists are about as savvy about aviation as they are about most things and in any event it is a simpler story to tell than explaining the increasing maintenance problems in elderly airliners that grow still older as new Boeing aircraft remain uncertified years after their promised delivery dates and even the certified MAX's production is FAA limited until Boeing gets it's $hit together.

https://www.thestreet.com/travel/sou...for-passengers

I even saw an article about an A321. Boeing's fault.

The next DC-3 that does a ground loop through the toolies: “Boeing’s fault” 😁

Well Boeing is the ultimate successor to the Douglas corporation...

Abusive uncle, adopted by marriage, which is how Ethiopian says they've been flying Boeing products since 1945.

Correct. Hence, my attempt at humor. After the marriage of Boeing and MD, I cringed when I first saw support documents that said “Boeing DC-3,”:eek:

Why did you cringe?

Having flown the airplane as a job, I hold the Douglas DC-3 with high reverence. Douglas beat Boeing’s arse in civil aircraft in that era. It would be like Ford buying GM and designating the Chevy Bel Air to the Ford Bel Air.

It's called a "Doug."

Calling it a "Boe" feels dirty; a bit like the shepherd stepping out with the goat.