Originally Posted by
Nomad2
My own view is that if / when the Max returns to the skies, it will be just as safe, safer maybe, than anything else.
If, by some unbelievable lapse of reason, it flies again (God forbid), it will be anything but "safer than anything else". This whole idea comes from common American misconception that if something has just crashed, people responsible will look at it closely and fix all bugs. But in this particular instance, instead of actually fixing the problem, Boeing twists arms, calls favors from lobbyists and pocket politicians, prepares Powerpoint presentations for safety meetings, and presses FAA to have "a timeline". It's hard to believe, but it looks like Boeing still doesn't realize how deep their troubles run. So please pay attention, Mr.Muilenburg.
In order to get "the max" flying again, they need approval from three countries (China, the EU and, to a lesser extent, Canada) with whom they are currently in a state of trade war (one declared, two apparent). And with two of those countries (Canada and the EU) they have ongoing aviation-related conflicts. China has already stated that they want complete re-certification and pilots retraining. EU wanted to test-fly the "MAX 2.0" in mid-December, which didn't happen (or I wasn't paying attention?). Canada's relationships with Boeing is so badly broken, from CF-105 through De Havilland Canada chew-and-spit to C-series lawsuit, that any help from them is unlikely... nor, I just thought, any significant resistance, but still...
You might run out of oxygen if you hold your breath for this one.