This blog posting represents the views of the author, David Fosberry. Those opinions may change over time. They do not constitute an expert legal or financial opinion.
If you have comments on this blog posting, please email me .
The Opinion Blog is organised by threads, so each post is identified by a thread number ("Major" index) and a post number ("Minor" index). If you want to view the index of blogs, click here to download it as an Excel spreadsheet.
Click here to see the whole Opinion Blog.
To view, save, share or refer to a particular blog post, use the link in that post (below/right, where it says "Show only this post").
Posted on 11th May 2021
|Show only this post|
Show all posts in this thread (Air Safety).
I don't think this headline on the BBC is quite right. It should read "Boeing tries, and fails, to refute new safety concerns".
In one example of safety issues a 737 Max was on a flight from Boeing Field airport in Seattle, to deliver the aircraft to Brussels. After problems emerged, it returned to its point of departure. The article says "The aircraft landed safely shortly afterwards". Again, I think that is incorrect; just because it landed successfully does not mean it landed safely.
From a safety perspective the 737 Max is so broken as to not be worth repairing. The design was, from the outset, deeply flawed. No amount of "band-aid" will make it safe.
Boeing should bite the bullet and scrap the plane, and compensate the unfortunate airlines who bought them.