Considering you accept that it's 100% certain it'll be be said it seems to be pretty telling data. I know we all laugh that management automatically fudges the numbers out of engineering, but mayhaps in Boeing's case the MBA logic of doing so is running into the issue of physics not being amenable to change just because management wants an earlier delivery date.
I was dubious before the crashes but after Boeing's reaction to the crashes I'm fairly sure I'd feel safer on their planes than Boeing's.
If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, it's a fraction of a percent chance.
Boeing's behavior was very poor and they have been rightfully taken to task for it. Aviation safety standards are incredibly high and the 737 Max didn't live up to those standards. The focus on cost cutting, selling critical redundant sensors as an upgrade to milk a little more cash out of buyers, mocking customers who wanted simulator training for their pilots, and more are all indicative of a bad corporate culture.
But the 737 Max is still a very safe plane. I have no qualms about flying on it.
This works out to around 0.2% (1 in 2000) which is spectacularly poor odds for modern aviation where the typical risk of a crash on a single commercial airliner is around 1 in 5 million (less than 1 in 100 000 for 10 flights per year over 50 years - so basically 50 times less safe).
No, no it's not safe.
Your entire argument is complete nonsense.
When the AoE sensor is damaged, the chance of a MAX problem is 100%.
> But the 737 Max is still a very safe plane. I have no qualms about flying on it.
It's grounded world-wide, so you're the only one.
