Originally Posted by
RTM Boy
Have you stopped to think, just for a second (there saving you time), that there are people other than crew and PAX that form part of the risk assessment envelope? Let me help you with that thought; persons on the ground...under the flight path...at the crash site (heaven forbid). Once again it comes down to the degree of risk, as assessed, mainly for crew ferrying MAXs to wherever, but also what if something (anything) caused the flight to, for example, crash onto a school (heaven forbid). Would you consider that to be evidentially valid?
Yes, I'm egging the point, but that's what correctly carried out risk assessment has to consider in terms of event possibility and probability. Besides Boeing and the FAA will (I hope) have considered the reputational and practical consequences of any further loss of a MAX airframe for any reason; eg the 'Not only' MCAS, 'but also' engine failures. Think about it.
I'm not disputing any of that.
The fact remains, however, that both the FAA and EASA have made provision for moving aircraft to base/storage/rectification locations. Go argue with them if you don't agree with their risk assessment.
In the meantime, perhaps the spotters could try to contain their excitement on the odd occasions that they see a Max on the flight trackers, which in any event aren't infallible, as we saw with that AAL example on FlightAware.